student travel surveys analysis report 2018 final travel... · • undertake a spreadsheet analysis...

University of Bristol

STUDENT TRAVEL SURVEY 2018 ANALYSIS REPORT July 2018

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 2

3. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 6

4. CARBON EMISSIONS OF TRAVEL 59

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 65

FIGURES

Figure 1: UoB Student Travel Survey Accommodation Locations

Figure 2: UoB Student Travel Survey Accommodation of All Students

Figure 3: UoB Student Travel Survey Study Locations

Figure 4: UoB Student Travel Survey Average Daily Walking and Cycle Trips

Figure 5: UoB Student Travel Survey Average Daily Public Transport Trips

Figure 6: UoB Student Travel Survey Average Daily Car Driver Trips

Figure 7: UoB Student Travel Survey Average Daily Car Passenger/Taxi Trips

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Student Travel Survey Questionnaire

© Key Transport Consultants www.key-transport.com

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 The University of Bristol (subsequently referred to as ‘the University’) is committed to reducing

reliance on single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and aims to reduce the number of cars taken

to University sites. The University conducts regular surveys to identify student travel patterns

and to help develop an effective package of sustainable travel measures aimed at influencing

student’s mode choice for their journeys to and from University sites.

1.2 The 2018 University Student Travel Survey was undertaken in February 2018 to collect

information on the travel habits of students and issues that impact on their choice of travel

mode. Invitations to complete the online survey were emailed to 25,024 students, of which

2,184 provided responses.

Brief

1.3 Key Transport Consultants (KTC) have been retained by the University to analyse the results

of their 2018 Student Travel Survey and summarise the findings. This includes provision of a

comparison with the mode share data from the most recent previous student survey in 2015

and can subsequently be used to inform progress towards the University’s current Travel Plan

goals. For consistency, an assessment of CO2 emissions is also undertaken, based on the

method previously adopted for the assessment of student travel emissions in 2015.

Report Structure

1.4 This report is structured as follows.

• Chapter 2 outlines the Student Travel Survey assessment methodology;

• Chapter 3 provides summary results of the survey using various charts, graphs and

tables to illustrate key points;

• Chapter 4 considers the carbon emissions of student travel movements based on the

responses to the survey;

• A summary and conclusions are provided in Chapter 5.

2

2. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Introduction

2.1 The University Student Travel Surveys are undertaken periodically to collect information

relating to the travel choices of students studying at the various University sites within the wider

Bristol area. Information collected during the surveys sis used in several ways:

• To identify issues faced by students in relation to travel movements;

• To monitor the effectiveness of the University Travel Plan and any existing travel

policies; and,

• To guide the development of the Travel Plan and future travel policies.

2.2 A survey questionnaire was produced and circulated electronically to all students (with paper

copies also available on request). A copy is provided in Appendix A.

Response Rate

2.3 The 2018 Student Travel Survey received 2,184 responses during the survey period. Data

obtained from the University identifies that there were 23,161 full-time and 1,863 part-time

students at the time of the 2018 survey. This gives an overall response rate of 8.7%.

2.4 This compares to a response rate of 15.9% (2,916 respondents) in 2015 and a 14% response

rate in 2014.

Methodology

2.5 The following steps were taken when assessing the Student Travel Survey data:

• determine groupings of student residential sites and study sites to allow a coherent and

viable comparison with previous year’s data. For the purposes of the 2018 assessment,

it was agreed with the University that three residential groupings would be adequate,

namely North Village, West Village and East Village. The former two would be

compared with groupings from the 2015 survey analyses for Stoke Bishop and Clifton,

with East Village making up a new category which is not suitable for direct comparison

with previous years data;

3

• in addition, the two study locations groupings would be for ‘All Hospitals’ and Langford.

It is noted that the 2015 survey only included a single hospital site (rather than

groupings of all hospitals) plus Langford. Despite minor differences, the two study

locations groups are considered to be similar enough for comparisons to be made;

• undertake a cleansing exercise on the student travel dataset to remove any errors

which may affect the robustness of the results. Errors may consist of missing address

or study location information, which can be corrected if adequate additional information

is provided within the responses to identify the likely study/living locations;

• undertake a spreadsheet analysis of the responses to the 2018 Student Travel Survey

and produce plans, maps, charts and tables to illustrate its findings; and,

• compare the most recent results with data from previous years to chart the scale of

changing trends in student travel movements (see Chapter 5).

Groupings of University Sites

2.6 To ease the sub-assessments and provide a reasonable comparison with previous years data,

University sites were grouped into five categories: three of which were residential groups

containing geographically clustered student hall locations, namely the North Village, West

Village and East Village; and two were distinct study locations including an individual site at

Langford which is home to the Veterinary School , and an ‘All Hospital’ study group. Together

these five groups (three residential groups and two study location groups) are used to provide

a focused sub-analyses for individual questions to allow a comparative analysis with previous

year’s data and for comparisons with each of other to examine the impacts of geographical

location or study type on student responses.

2.7 Table 2.1 overleaf illustrates many of the residential sites identified by respondents grouped

into each of the three residential village clusters. Any residential sites not listed in Table 2.1

have not had any sub analyses performed on them but are still examined in isolation.

2.8 In relation to the two study location groups, Langford is an individual site which the students

who study there were able to correctly record within their responses. The ‘All Hospital’ group of

study sites required some manipulation of the dataset as not all of the Hospital sites were listed

within the questionnaire. Those listed included: Frenchay, Southmead and University Hospitals

Bristol, with additional hospital sites being manually recorded by the respondents including

various spellings of Bristol Dental Hospital, Bristol Royal Infirmary, St. Michael’s Hospital, Royal

United Hospital Bath, NHS Blood and Transplant Filton, and Taunton Hospital.

4

Table 2.1: Residential Village Groups for Sub-Analyses

NORTH VILLAGE

Badock Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Churchill Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Durdham Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Hiatt Baker Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Hiatt Baker self-catered Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

University Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Wills Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

WEST VILLAGE

115 Queens Road Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

121 Redland Road Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Brunel House Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Clifton Hill House Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Goldney Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Harbour Court Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Hillside/Woodside Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Manor Hall Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Northwell Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Richmond Terrace Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

St Michaels Park/Hill/Woodland Rd Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Winkworth House Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Deans Court Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Woodland Court Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

EAST VILLAGE

Chantry Court Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Colston Street Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

Favell Undergraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Marlborough House Postgraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

New Bridewell Undergraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Orchard Heights Either Partnership Owned and Managed

The Courtrooms Either Partnership Owned and Managed

The Rackhay Undergraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Unite House Undergraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

Waverley House Undergraduate Partnership Owned and Managed

The Hawthorns Undergraduate UoB Owned and Managed

5

Correcting Data Errors

2.9 To ensure a robust assessment, the raw dataset was cleaned to remove any major or significant

errors which may affect the robustness of the results.

2.10 A number of errors were identified, primarily related to different spellings of University sites,

mostly within the categories where students were able to provide ‘other’ non-standard answers

or where the student did not recognise their building from the official name given and instead

referred to their faculty department, room or road name.

2.11 Many of these errors were easily corrected manually, such as the multiple spellings of locations

including the Arts and Social Sciences Library (ASS Library), Cantock’s Close and the Merchant

Venturer’s Building.

2.12 Where a respondent has provided multiple answers for the same question, for simplicity and

so as to not exclude these records, they have been allocated to the first location the respondent

provided unless their response indicated that one of the other locations was more used.

Charting Trends

2.13 To undertake a comparative assessment of the data with the previous survey results from 2015,

and with other site clusters within the 2018 survey results, various mediums are used to

communicate any patterns.

2.14 In particular, the assessment primarily uses a spreadsheet analysis to calculate percentage

responses for each question where appropriate quantitative data is provided. This allows data

to be fed directly into bar charts, pie charts, line graphs and other illustrative medium to present

the current travel situation for students and to highlight any trends.

2.15 To provide a further medium to communicate travel modes used to get to students places of

study, a series of plans are produced, one for each assessed mode of travel. These provide a

useful visual aid which can clearly highlight where the highest concentrations of trips originate

from within Bristol and from the wider area.

Comparisons with 2015 Student Survey Responses

2.16 Comparisons of emissions data from the 2018 and 2015 Travel Surveys are provided in

Chapter 4 of this report.

2.17 Comparisons of the 2018 and 2015 survey responses for selected questions, and with earlier

datasets where possible/available, are provided in Chapter 5 of this report.

6

3. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

3.1 The results of the 2018 Student Travel survey are set out by question below.

3.2 Typically, where appropriate, the survey results are provided as a percentage. Unless otherwise

stated, the percentage is calculated based on the number of valid responses recorded for each

question. Therefore, where no answer has been provided or left blank, it has been ignored in

the calculations.

3.3 For consistency with previous years’ surveys, the 2018 Travel Survey is divided into eight

sections as listed below:

• About You

• Degree Information

• Studying at the University

• Car Travel

• Public Transport

• Cycling

• Motorcycling

• Travel Plan Measures

3.4 Each question has been analysed based on the answers provided by all student respondents.

In addition, sub-analyses of each question are also undertaken (except Q’s 8, 16, 17 & 28) for

specific groupings of students, which are:

• Students living in the ‘North Village’ (formerly Stoke Bishop) residences;

• Students living in the ‘West Village’ (formerly Clifton) residences;

• Students living in the ‘East Village’ residences;

• Students studying at any Hospital sites; and

• Students studying in Langford.

7

About You

3.5 Questions 1 to 6 of the travel survey asked students about themselves.

Question 1: Email Address

3.6 Students were asked to provide an email address in order to be entered into the incentive prize

draw. This question was optional and has not been analysed.

Question 2: Gender

3.7 Question 2 of the survey asked the respondents to state their gender. The split is approximately

65% female to 33% male with less than 2% selecting other, compared to 62% female and 38%

male in 2015. Proportions for the sub-analyses sites shown below in Tables 3.1 and 3.2

illustrate that the three residences display similar proportions but both Langford and the

Hospitals have a higher proportion of females. It is understood that the gender mix amongst

students at the University is approximately 55/45 suggesting that male students are under-

represented in this survey.

Table 3.1: Residences Sub-analysis Q2

Male Female Other

North Village 34% 64% 2%

West Village 31% 68% 1%

East Village 32% 66% 2%

Table 3.2: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q2

Male Female Other

All Hospitals 18% 82% 0%

Langford 14% 85% 1%

Male

33%

Female

65%

Other

2%

Q1. Gender of Respondents

Male Female Other

8

Question 3: Age Group

3.8 Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents (81%) are aged between 18 and 25 years old with

the second largest group (14%) being aged between 26 and 35. This represents a change of

less than 2% in each of the main categories (i.e. 18-25 & 26-35) when compared to the 2015

Student Travel survey.

3.9 As Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below illustrate that nearly all of the students residing in the three

University villages are under 25, whilst they are less prominent at Hospital sites and Langford

study sites.


Under 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56+

North Village 0% 99% 1% 0% 0% 0%

West Village 1% 93% 6% 1% 0% 0%

East Village 0% 93% 7% 0% 0% 0%


Under 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56+

All Hospitals 0% 73% 27% 0% 0% 0%

Langford 0% 68% 28% 3% 1% 0%

81%

14%

3%1% 1%

0%Q3. What is your age group?

18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 56 plus Under 18

9

Question 4: Where do you come from?

3.10 74% of students stated that they were from the UK which is a less than 2% reduction from 2015.

10% of students were from the rest of the European Union with 16% of students were from

outside Europe. This compares to 7.8% and 16.6% in 2015 respectively.

3.11 Proportions for the sub-analyses sites shown below in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate that the

West and East villages have higher than average levels of non-UK/EU students.


UK EU (but not UK)

Outside EU & UK

No Response

North Village 88% 4% 8% 1%

West Village 64% 9% 27% 0%

East Village 62% 9% 29% 0%


UK EU (but not UK)

Outside EU & UK

No Response

All Hospitals 82% 4% 14% 0%

Langford 87% 6% 7% 0%

United

Kingdom (UK)

74%

European

Union (EU)-

(but non UK)

10%

Overseas

(outside EU)

16%

No Response

0%

Q4. Where do you come from?

United Kingdom (UK) European Union (EU)-(but non UK)

Overseas (outside EU) No Response

10

Question 5a: Do you have a disability which affects your travel to study arrangements?

3.12 3% of students answered that they have a disability which affected their travel arrangements.

This compares to 1.7% in the 2015 Student Travel Survey. Very little variation was observed

within each of the sub-analysis sites as shown below in Tables 3.7 and 3.8.

Table 3.7: Residences Sub-analysis Q5a

Yes No Prefer not to

say




Table 3.8: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q5a


say


Langford 4% 96% 0%

Question 5b: Do you have a caring responsibility which affects your travel to study

arrangements?

3.13 3% of students answered that they have a caring responsibility which affected their travel

arrangements. This compares to 2.7% in the 2015 Student Travel Survey. As shown in Tables

3.9 and 3.10, both Langford and the Hospitals display a higher proportion of students with caring

responsibilities when compared to the three residential sites.

Table 3.9: Residences Sub-analysis Q5a


say




Table 3.10: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q5a


say


Langford 6% 94% 0%

11

Question 6: Do you live in University allocated accommodation?

3.14 The survey notes that 30% of respondents live in University allocated accommodation. This

compares to 31.7% in the 2015 Student Survey which represents a slight reduction.

3.15 As shown below in Tables 3.11 and 3.12, as expected, all of the responses from the three

residential villages were from residents of University sites. In contrast, there were very few

University residents studying at either the ‘All Hospitals’ or Langford sites, at 10% and 4%

respectively.


Yes No

North Village 100% 0%

West Village 100% 0%

East Village 100% 0%


Yes No

All Hospitals 10% 90%

Langford 4% 96%

Yes

30%

No

70%

Q6. Do you live in University allocated

accommodation?

Yes No

12

Question 6a: What is your University Allocated term time accommodation address?

3.16 Students who stated that they lived in University allocated accommodation were then asked to

say which accommodation they lived in. Two students selected the ‘Other’ option and provided

alternative addresses (Fusion Tower & Academies (Medicine)). These have been manually

removed from the results, which are summarised in Table 3.13 below.

Table 3.13: Proportion of respondents living in University allocated accommodation

Accomodation Name %

Hiatt Baker Hall 2.5%

New Bridewell 2.3%

Goldney Hall 1.6%

Orchard Heights 1.6%

Unite House 1.6%

Wills Hall 1.4%

Manor Hall 1.3%

Durdham Hall 1.3%

Churchill Hall 1.3%

The Courtrooms 1.3%

University Hall 1.2%

Badock Hall 1.2%

Favell House 1.1%

Waverley House 1.1%

Clifton Hill House 1.1%

Northwell House 1.0%

Deans Court 0.7%

Winkworth House 0.7%

Richmond Terrace 0.6%

The Hawthorns 0.6%

Chantry Court 0.5%

Woodland Court 0.5%

Colston Street 0.5%

The Rackhay 0.4%

Blenheim Court 0.3%

115 Queens Road 0.3%

Harbour Court 0.3%

Hillside/Woodside 0.1%

28-33 St Michaels Park 0.1%

Culver House 0.1%

121 Redland Road 0.1%

43/45 St Michaels Hill 0.1%

97 Woodland Road 0.1%

Langford <0.1%

Sinclair House Family Flats <0.1%

53 St Michaels Hill <0.1%

13

Question 6b: What is your Non-University Allocated term time accommodation address?

3.18 Students who did not live in University allocated accommodation were asked to provide their

postcodes. The term time addresses of both the University provided accommodation and the

individual postcodes of non-university sites have been plotted on a map which can be seen in

Figure 1. Where possible, postcodes have been assigned to addresses (including halls) where

no postcode was supplied by the respondent.

3.19 The postcode data shows that 67% of respondents live within 1 mile radius of the centre of the

University Precinct, with 85% living within 2 miles. 92% of respondents provide term time

addresses within 10 miles of the University Precinct.

3.20 Where multiple respondents share a postcode, a plot showing individuals can be difficult to

read. Figure 2 shows the same data aggregated across small geographic areas. The areas

used are the Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOA), which are produced by the Office for

National Statistics to provide a standard basis on which census data can be reported. Each

LSOA will contain populations of between 1,000 and 3,000 people and between 400 and 1,200

households.

3.21 Figure 2 shows the concentration of respondents around the Stoke Bishop halls and hot spots

around the main University Precinct. The plan also shows increased concentrations of students

around the Langford Vet School.

3.22 The postcode district is identified by the first letter or two of the postcode plus the numbers

before the space (i.e. BS1). The number of respondents living in each postcode district has

been summarised and can be seen in Table 3.14 overleaf.

14

Table 3.14: Non University Allocated Student Term Time Address Postcode Districts

Postcode District % Postcode District %

BS8 19.92% SN2 0.09%

BS6 15.80% SP2 0.09%

BS1 6.96% AL5 0.05%

BS2 6.32% BA1 0.05%

BS7 2.56% BA11 0.05%

BS3 1.83% BA13 0.05%

BS5 1.42% BD4 0.05%

BS16 1.28% BS24 0.05%

No Response 1.14% BS25 0.05%

BS15 1.01% BS26 0.05%

BS49 0.82% BS42 0.05%

BS9 0.82% BT16 0.05%

BS40 0.78% CF10 0.05%

BS14 0.69% CF14 0.05%

BS10 0.64% CF35 0.05%

BS4 0.64% CF44 0.05%

BA2 0.60% DE22 0.05%

BS32 0.46% E17 0.05%

BS34 0.46% EX14 0.05%

BS13 0.37% EX16 0.05%

BS23 0.32% EX20 0.05%

BS11 0.27% GL1 0.05%

BS20 0.27% GL11 0.05%

BS31 0.27% GL16 0.05%

BA5 0.18% GL2 0.05%

BS21 0.18% GL20 0.05%

BS37 0.18% GL50 0.05%

BS39 0.18% GL7 0.05%

GL12 0.18% HR8 0.05%

GL51 0.18% ME15 0.05%

BA14 0.14% ME4 0.05%

BA15 0.14% NG15 0.05%

BS22 0.14% NP25 0.05%

BS35 0.14% NP26 0.05%

BA12 0.09% NP7 0.05%

BA16 0.09% OX18 0.05%

BA3 0.09% PE1 0.05%

BA4 0.09% SN11 0.05%

BS12 0.09% SN14 0.05%

BS27 0.09% SN25 0.05%

BS29 0.09% SN4 0.05%

BS41 0.09% SN5 0.05%

BS48 0.09% SN8 0.05%

CF24 0.09% SO31 0.05%

NP19 0.09% SQ19 0.05%

NP20 0.09% TA2 0.05%

SN12 0.09% TA5 0.05%

SN13 0.09% TA7 0.05%

SN15 0.09%

3.23 If the postcodes of those living in halls (29.2%) is combined with those living outside halls, it is

noted that 94.6% of students have Bristol (BS) postcodes, which is a 1.7% reduction from 2015.

15

Degree Information

Question 7: Which faculty are you based in?

3.24 The survey was completed by students in all of the six faculties. Those within the Science (23%)

and Social Science & Law (23%) faculties were best represented which is broadly consistent

with the 2015 survey (24.4% & 21.7% respectively). As shown in Tables 3.15 and 3.16, the two

study locations, at Langford and the Hospitals, are dominated by Health Science students whilst

the residential locations show only minor variations from the average.


Art

s

Bio

me

dic

al

Sc

ien

ces

En

gin

ee

rin

g

He

alt

h

Sc

ien

ces

Sc

ien

ce

So

cia

l

Sc

ien

ces

a

nd

La

w

No

Re

sp

on

se

North Village 25% 7% 13% 13% 23% 19% 0%

West Village 18% 10% 13% 12% 22% 24% 1%

East Village 12% 7% 17% 9% 24% 31% 0%


Art

s

Bio

me

dic

al

Sc

ien

ces

En

gin

ee

rin

g

He

alt

h

Sc

ien

ces

Sc

ien

ce

So

cia

l S

cie

nc

es

an

d L

aw

No

R

es

po

nse

All Hospitals 0% 8% 0% 90% 0% 2% 0%

Langford 3% 8% 0% 89% 0% 0% 0%

Arts

16%

Biomedical Sciences

8%

Engineering

15%

Health Sciences

15%

Science

23%

Social Sciences & Law

23%

Q7. What faculty are you based in?

Arts Biomedical Sciences Engineering Health Sciences Science Social Sciences & Law

16

Question 8. Where is your main place of study?

3.25 The 2,184 student respondents selected their main place of study from a list of options. They

were also able to select ‘Other’ and enter a place of study manually. In total, 143 unique places

(including different spellings of the same place) were provided by students.

Table 3.17: Main Place of Study

Place of Study Count 2018 % 2015% 2015-2018 change

Berkeley Square 132 6.0% 4.4% 1.60%

Canynge Hall 12 0.5% 0.5% 0.00%

Oakfield and Barley Houses 16 0.7% N/A N/A

Dorothy Hodgkins Building 10 0.5% 0.5% 0.00%

Home / Distance Learning 101 4.6% 5.6% -1.00%

Langford 72 3.3% 2.0% 1.30%

Life Sciences 125 5.7% 4.2% 1.50%

Placements all over UK 20 0.9% 1.2% -0.30%

Precinct 1438 65.8% 71.2% -5.40%

Southmead Hospital 11 0.5% 0.8% -0.30%

Southwell Street building 75 3.4% 3.2% 0.20%

The Richmond Building 48 2.2% N/A N/A

UH Bristol Hospitals 37 1.7% 2.6% -0.90%

Frenchay Hospital 1 0.0% 0.1% -0.10%

Victoria Rooms 49 2.2% 3.0% -0.80%

Other 37 1.7% 0.8% 0.90%

3.26 Most of the additional places of study provided as ‘Other’ options lay within the University

Precinct, so the data have been manually reviewed to allocate most of the unique places to one

of the 16 original options provided, as shown above in Table 3.17.

3.27 The ‘Other’ options provided which were not allocated to one of the original 16 options are listed

below. As shown, none of these options exceed 1% of responses received, with the highest (St

Michael’s) garnering 7 responses and 0.32% of the total study locations.

• Bristol Royal Infirmary (0.09%)

• College Green (0.05%)

• Bristol Dental Hospital (0.23%)

• Emersons Green (inc. National Composites Centre) (0.09%)

• Filton NHS Blood and Transplant (0.09%)

• Frenchay (0.18%)

• Fusion Tower (0.05%)

• Geology (0.05%)

• Overseas Placement (inc. Hong Kong) (0.05%)

• Stokes Bishop (inc. Badock Library) (0.09%)

• Bath (0.09%)

• Queens Road (0.09%)

• St Michael’s (inc. Hill and Hospital) (0.32%)

• Taunton (0.05%)

• No Response (0.09%)

17

3.28 The Precinct generates the greatest number of responses with 1,438 (65.8%) for study

locations across all sites combined. Berkeley Square is the most selected site away from the

central Precinct with 132 respondents (6.0%) with Life Sciences close behind on 125 (5.7%).

Table 3.18: Main Place of Study - Residences Sub-analysis Q8

Place of Study North Village West Village East Village Berkeley Square 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% Canynge Hall N/A N/A N/A Oakfield and Barley Houses N/A 0.1% N/A Dorothy Hodgkins Building N/A N/A N/A Home / Distance Learning 0.2% 0.7% 0.9% Langford N/A N/A N/A Life Sciences 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% Placements all over UK N/A N/A N/A Precinct 6.5% 5.6% 7.2% Southmead Hospital N/A N/A N/A Southwell Street building 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% The Richmond Building 0.2% 0.4% 0.5% UH Bristol Hospitals N/A 0.1% N/A Frenchay Hospital N/A N/A N/A Victoria Rooms 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% Other N/A N/A N/A TOTAL 8.8% 8.9% 11.0%

3.29 In terms of study locations for the three residential villages, Table 3.18 above summarises the

percentage (of the total) of students who study at the locations listed but reside in one of the

three villages. As expected, a majority of students surveyed in each residential village study

within the Precinct. There is very little variation across the other categories, except for

Home/Distance Learning which appears notably lower in the North Village (0.2%) when

compared to the West (0.7%) and East (0.9%) Villages.

3.30 Figure 3 shows the aggregated locations of study by LSOA. The areas in and around the main

University Precinct can clearly be seen on the plan, with the darkest LSOA area representing

1,563 respondents. Some of the areas highlighted away from University sites represent

students whose main place of study is at home.

18

Question 9: Which of the following type(s) of student applies to you?

3.31 The students were asked to describe the type of student they were by selecting from a list of

10 options, including an ‘Other’ option which allowed the respondent to enter a different answer.

Respondents were able to select multiple options.

3.32 67.4% of respondents stated that they were undergraduates compared to 70.4% in 2015.

3.33 17.2% stated that they were postgraduates – research compared to 16% in 2015 and 13.4%

stated that they were postgraduate – taught compared to 13% in 2015. No students were

identified as PhD students.

3.34 40.1% of respondents stated that they were full-time students (a fall of 0.1% since 2015) and

2.6% stated that they were part-time students (down from 2.9%), with 57.3% providing no

indication of their full or part-time status suggesting some inconsistency in the way that the

question was answered.

3.35 5.7% of respondents described themselves as a mature student, down from 6.5% in 2015. One

person described themselves as lazy and sleepy.

3.36 0.9% of students identified themselves as Erasmus students which is a slight reduction from

1.1% in 2015.

3.37 6.9% of respondents identified themselves as international students which has fallen from 8.1%

since 2015.

3.38 The list of 7 alternative options provided can be seen in Table 3.19 below.

Table 3.19: Which Type of Student – Alternative Responses

Type of Student %

Access Course Type 0.05%

Bermudian 0.05%

Erasmus 0.92%

Intercalated 0.05%

International 6.87%

M Eng 0.05%

Other 0.27%

PGCE 0.14%

3.39 As shown overleaf in Tables 3.20 and 3.21, a higher proportion of undergraduates are living in

halls whilst more mature students study at Langford and the Hospitals.

19

Table 3.20: Which Type of Student – Residences Sub-analysis Q9

Type of Student North Village West Village East Village

Postgraduate - Research 2% 6% 2%

Postgraduate - Taught 1% 12% 14% Postgraduate - Research and Taught 0% 0% 0%

Undergraduate 97% 81% 80% Undergraduate & Postgraduate Research 0% 0% 0% Undergraduate & Postgraduate Taught 0% 0% 0%

No Response 1% 1% 2%

Full-Time 38% 41% 40%

Part-Time 0% 0% 0%

Mature 1% 2% 1%

Access Course Type 0% 0% 0%

Bermudian 1% 0% 0%

Erasmus 0% 1% 0%

Intercalated 0% 0% 0%

International 3% 10% 10%

M Eng 0% 0% 0%

Other 1% 1% 0%

PGCE 0% 0% 0%

Table 3.21: Which Type of Student – Study Locations Sub-analysis Q9 Type of Student All Hospitals Langford

Postgraduate - Research 27% 18%

Postgraduate - Taught 4% 6% Postgraduate - Research and Taught 0% 0%

Undergraduate 69% 73% Undergraduate & Postgraduate Research 0% 0% Undergraduate & Postgraduate Taught 0% 1%

No Response 0% 1%

Full-Time 47% 61%

Part-Time 0% 0%

Mature 12% 21%

Access Course Type 0% 0%

Bermudian 0% 0%

Erasmus 0% 0%

Intercalated 0% 0%

International 0% 0%

M Eng 0% 0%

Other 0% 0%

PGCE 0% 0%

20

Studying at the University

Question 10: How many days do you travel to your main place of study in a normal full

study week?

3.40 The majority of respondents travelled to their main place of study five days per week which is

consistent with the responses in 2015.

3.41 As shown below in Table 3.22, each of the residences appears to present very similar number

of study days per week indicating that there is no significant difference between North, West

and East Villages. A comparison of the 2018 residences responses with previous years shows

that the previous Clifton residential group is broadly similar to the new three village categories

whilst Stoke Bishop had a higher five-day attendance in 2015 (74%) but little variation in the

other categories.

3.42 As Table 3.23 shows, ‘All Hospitals’ appear significantly more likely to have 5-day attendance

than other sites, with an increase from 82% in 2015 to 85% in 2018. Langford has seen a fall

in 5-day attendance (72% to 52%) and a rise in 2-day attendance (from 0% to 15%) for 2015

and 2018 respectively.


One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

North Village 2% 1% 10% 19% 63% 6% 4%

West Village 2% 2% 10% 20% 62% 5% 3%

East Village 3% 2% 7% 19% 63% 7% 2%

Table 3.23: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q10 One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

All Hospitals 0% 2% 2% 8% 85% 2% 2%

Langford 0% 15% 8% 14% 52% 10% 0%

3.6%

4.5%

8.7%

16.5%

53.8%

8.8%

4.1%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Q10. How many days do you travel to your main place of

study in a normal full study week?

21

Question 11: When you travel to your 'place of study' from your 'term time address', how

often do you use the following modes of transport?

3.43 From a list of travel options respondents were asked to select how often they used each mode

of travel. The permitted answers were: Usually (67% - 100% of journeys); Sometimes (34% -

66% of journeys); Occasionally (33% or fewer journeys); and Never.

3.44 An initial analysis was undertaken looking at the usual mode of travel. The analysis only

included responses where a respondent had stated that they “Usually (67% - 100%)” used a

mode for travel to their place of study. The mode share for the usual mode of travel to the

University can be seen in the chart below.

3.45 As can be observed from the chart below, there has been very little change in mode choice for

travel to study from 2015 to 2018. Walking continues to be the most popular form of travel to

study with 62.4% of respondents saying that this is their usual mode. This compares to 63.4%

in 2015. Car Driver (on own) has increased slightly from 4.1% in 2015 to 4.6% in 2018. The

proportion that use all Public Transport (including bus, coach, P&R, taxi and train travel) has

increased slightly from 18.9% in 2015 to 20.3% in 2018.

4.1%

0.7%

1.1%

0.2%

63.4%

8.3%

5.6%

9.9%

2.4%

0.4%

0.7%

0.3%

0.1%

2.8%

4.6%

0.9%

0.8%

0.1%

62.4%

7.8%

9.3%

7.3%

2.6%

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

0.1%

2.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Car driver - own

Car driver - with a least one passenger

Car passenger

Formal car share

Walk

Cycle

Bus or coach

U1 Bus (U16 previously)

Train

Motorcycle

Park and Ride

Taxi

Wheelchair/mobility scooter

Formal study from home

Q.11 Usual Mode Choice for Travel to Study

% 2018

% 2015

22

3.46 Although the 2018 analysis shows a slight increase in single person car use and a reduction in

cycle use and walking since 2015, there are also some minor increases in Public Transport

use.

Table 3.24: Usual Method of Travel to Main Place of Study from Term Time Address Sub-analysis Q11

Year

Mode of Travel

North Village Residences %

West Village Residences %

East Villages Residences

%

All Hospitals Study Sites

%

Langford Study Site %

Car driver - own 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 16.3% 41.8%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.1% 11.9%

Car passenger 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 7.5%

Formal car share 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Walk 11.2% 88.7% 78.8% 51.0% 16.4%

Cycle 5.6% 2.0% 0.0% 16.3% 3.0%

Bus or coach 9.7% 5.4% 10.0% 4.1% 16.4%

U1 Bus 71.4% 1.5% 6.6% 2.0% 1.5%

Train 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 4.1% 1.5%

Motorcycle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Park and Ride 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Taxi 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


0.5% 1.5% 3.1% 2.0% 0.0%

3.47 As Table 3.24 illustrates, for residents in the North Village, Public Transport is the most widely

used usual form of transport for travel to study locations with 71.4% using the U1 bus and 9.7%

using a bus or coach. In contrast, in both the West and East Villages, walking is the dominant

mode choice which may reflect their specific location in relation to the study locations.

3.48 Similarly, for the study locations, walking is the dominant mode for the ‘All Hospitals’ sites (51%)

but, due to its rural location with limited bus services, most students use a private car to access

Langford with 41.8% driving on their own, 11.9% driving with a passenger, and 7.5% as a

passenger.

3.49 The usual mode/s of travel selected by respondents has been mapped to aid analysis of the

data. Figure 4 shows the area where respondents who usually Walk or Cycle to their place of

study live, while Figure 5 shows the areas where respondents who usually take Public

Transport (Bus, Coach, Train) to their place of study live. Figure 6 shows the areas where

respondents who usually drive a car (with or without passengers) to their place of study live

and Figure 7 shows the areas where respondents who usually travel as a car or taxi passenger

to their place of study live.

23

Table 3.25: Comparison of Usual Method of Travel to Main Place of Study from Term Time Address

2015-2018 - Sub-analysis Q11

Year

Mode of Travel

North Village (Stoke Bishop)

Residences %

West Village (Clifton)

Residences %

East Villages

Residences %

All Hospitals (Southmead Hospital) %

Langford %

Car driver - own 1% -1% N/A -1% 1%


0% -1% N/A -9% 2%

Car passenger 0% -1% N/A -9% -12%

Formal car share

0% -1% N/A 0% -5%

Walk -1% 2% N/A 29% 6%

Cycle -1% 1% N/A 7% 0%

Bus or coach 10% 4% N/A -26% 6%

U1 Bus -9% 0% N/A 2% 1%

Train 1% 0% N/A 4% 1%

Motorcycle 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Park and Ride 1% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Taxi 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%


0% -1% N/A 0% 0%


1% 0% N/A 2% 0%

3.50 Table 3.25 shows a comparison of the 2015 and 2018 survey results. Within Table 3.25, red

cells are used to indicate the greatest reductions at each site since 2015 and green cells

indicate the greatest increases. This highlights that most of the mode shares report little or no

change since the 2015 survey.

3.51 However, change has occurred with increases in bus/coach use from the North Village (+10%),

West Village (+4%) and Langford (+6%) and reduced bus/coach use only being reported at the

All Hospitals sites (-26%).

3.52 In terms of reductions in mode share since 2015, the U1 bus reports a 9% reduction from the

North Village/Stoke Bishop. Within the West Village, slight reductions of around 1% are

observed on five different modes (i.e. four of the car-based travel modes and wheelchair use).

Within the Langford Campus, car passenger travel has reduced by 12% since 2015, with mode

shift appearing to switch travel equally to walking and bus/coach travel (both +6%).

3.53 As shown above, there appears to have been: a direct shift from U1 bus to other bus/coach

routes at the North Village site; a move from car-based travel to bus/coach travel at the West

Villages site; a shift from bus/coach travel to walking at the All Hospitals sites; and car

passengers switching to bus/coach or walking at Langford.

24

3.55 Figure 4 shows that the majority of respondents in 2018 who walk or cycle to their place of

study live within 2km of the University Precinct. There are however a few exceptions to this

including respondents living in and around Langford, Bath, Yate and South Wales.

3.56 Figure 5 shows that the majority of respondents who usually travel to their place of study by

Public Transport live to the north or east of the city centre. There is a concentration of public

transport users around Stoke Bishop (total of 144 respondents) and at the Precinct (26

respondents)

3.57 Figure 6 shows the areas where respondents who usually drive to their place of study live. It is

quite surprising to see a cluster (albeit a small cluster of 4 respondents) stating that the drive

to their place of study when living so close to the University Precinct. Less surprising are the

clusters further out, particularly near the Langford Vet School and at Congresbury. However,

no single LSOA has more than 7 students driving.

3.58 The analysis of the method of travel question is unweighted as it takes no account of the number

of journeys a student makes. Therefore, someone walking to their place of study twice a day,

five days per week, recorded the same as someone who walks to their place of study once a

day on one day of the week. There are also a number of examples of respondents stating that

they usually use more than one mode, effectively double counting.

3.59 In order to weight the results, the answers to a number of questions has been combined in

order to estimate the number of journeys each student makes by each mode of transport in a

typical week from which a weighted mode share can be calculated.

3.60 The first step of the calculation is to apply a value to each of the responses provided. Usually

(67% - 100% of journeys) has been valued as 1 journey per day on average; Sometimes (34%

- 66% of journeys) has been valued as 0.666 journeys per day on average (i.e used for travel

on two out of three days); Occasionally (33% or fewer journeys) has been valued as 0.333

journeys per day on average (i.e. used once every three days); and Never is valued as zero

journeys per day.

3.61 Where respondents have selected that they use a number of different modes the sum of all of

their mode choices may end up being higher than 1, at say 2.5 journeys per day on average.

The values assigned to each option have then been rebased so that the sum of all the

responses is 1. For example, if someone has said that they usually walk and they usually catch

the train and never use any other mode of transport, the value assigned to each mode is

reduced to 0.5 from 1, which assumes that they either walk for half the journey and catch the

train for half the journey or that they walk or catch the train on alternate days.

25

3.62 The number of days per week each student travels to their place of study is known from the

answers provided to Question 10 and the number of times per day they typically travel to their

place of study from Question 13.

3.63 The average number of trips undertaken by each mode in an average week is calculated by

multiplying the value assigned to the rebased mode by the number of trips per day (outlined in

Question 13) by the number of days per week (Question 10). As Question 13 asks for details

of the number of return trips, to get the actual number of trips by mode, the total then needs to

be multiplied by 2. Although the return trip issue will not affect the weighted mode share split

shown in the chart below (as it is a percentage), it will affect the emissions outlined in Chapter

4 of this report.

3.64 As shown in the chart below, despite some minor differences, the weighted mode share split is

generally similar to the un-weighted usual mode of travel mode split. The results show that

92.5% of all travel to a place of study in 2018 is undertaken without using a car.

3.65 Excluding ‘Formal study from home’ which does not involve travel, the weighted survey results

show that 85.4% of journeys associated with travel to a place of study are undertaken without

using a car of any kind. This compares to 87.1% in 2015 (weighted average) and therefore

shows a slight decrease in car use.

3.3%

1.2%

2.2%

0.1%

56.1%

8.3%

11.4%

7.5%

1.9%

0.3%

0.3%

1.5%

0.0%

6.0%

4.6%

0.9%

0.8%

0.1%

62.4%

7.8%

9.3%

7.3%

2.6%

0.2%

0.7%

0.4%

0.1%

2.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Car driver - own


Car passenger

Formal car share

Walk

Cycle

Bus or coach

U1 Bus (U16 previously)

Train

Motorcycle

Park and Ride

Taxi



Q.11 Weighted vs. Unweighted Mode Choice for Travel to

Study

Unweighted

2018 %

Weighted

2018 %

26

Question 12: How long does your door-to-door journey TO your place of study normally

take?

3.66 As shown above, 79.4% of students responded that they have a journey of 30 minutes or less,

with 94.0% of student journeys to their place of study take an hour or less. The sub-analyses

of residences (Table 3.26) and study locations (Table 3.27) below shows only minor differences

between the average travel times to each site although Langford travel times appear to be

slightly longer, probably due to its rural location, its limited on-site residences, and a wider,

more diluted catchment area.


0-15 mins

16-30 mins

31-45 mins

46-60 mins

61-75 mins

76-90 mins

90 mins+

North Village 49% 32% 9% 6% 1% 2% 1%

West Village 41% 43% 7% 4% 2% 3% 2%

East Village 37% 42% 12% 5% 2% 2% 2%


0-15 mins

16-30 mins

31-45 mins

46-60 mins

61-75 mins

76-90 mins

90 mins+

All Hospitals 47% 31% 8% 12% 2% 0% 0%

Langford 32% 39% 11% 7% 4% 1% 4%

40.7%38.7%

10.0%

4.6%2.1% 1.9% 1.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Up

to 1

5 m

inu

tes

16

to 3

0 m

inu

tes

31

to 4

5 m

inu

tes

46

to 6

0 m

inu

tes

Ove

r 1 h

ou

r an

d u

p to

1

ho

ur 1

5 m

inu

tes

Ove

r 1 h

ou

r 15

min

ute

s an

d

up

to 1

ho

ur 3

0 m

inu

tes

Mo

re th

an

1 h

ou

r 30

min

ute

s

Q12. How long does your door-to-door journey TO your place

of study normally take?

27

3.67 To provide a comparison between 2018 and 2015 data, Tables 3.28 and 3.29 below show the

change in travel time groups since 2015.

Table 3.28: 2015-18 Comparison - Residences Sub-analysis Q12

0-15 mins

16-30 mins

31-45 mins

46-60 mins

61-75 mins

76-90 mins

90 mins+

North Village/ Stoke Bishop 40% -28% -19% 4% 1% 2% 1%

West Village/Clifton -17% 3% 5% 4% 2% 3% 2%

East Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 3.29: 2015-18 Comparison - Study Locations Sub-analysis Q12

0-15 mins

16-30 mins

31-45 mins

46-60 mins

61-75 mins

76-90 mins

90 mins+

All Hospitals/Southmead 38% 3% -42% 8% -7% 0% 0%

Langford -2% 9% 4% -15% 1% 0% 4%

3.68 As shown in Table 3.28, it appears that students are able to travel from the North Village to

their study location much quicker than in previous years. A 40% increase in the 0-15 minute

time period group is coupled with reductions in the 16-30 minute and 31-45 minute groups, with

only minor increases for journeys above 46 minutes.

3.69 In contrast, Table 3.28 shows that a smaller proportion of students are able to access their

study location from the West Village in less than 15 minutes (-17%) than in 2015 with all other

categories showing increased numbers of students. This indicates that travel times to the West

Village have increased.

3.70 Table 3.29 illustrates that there has been a significant increase in the numbers of students who

are able to access the All Hospitals sites within a 15-minute journey (+38%) with a comparable

reduction in journeys between 31-45 minutes.

3.71 Table 3.29 also shows that, for travel to/from Langford, increases in the 16-30 minute (+9%),

31-45 minute (+4%) and over 90 minutes (+4%) travel distances are observed. Most of these

increases are sourced from the 46-60 minute group, which reports a 15% reduction since 2015.

28

Question 13: On the days that you are attending the University, on average how many

return journeys do you make between your term time address and your place of study a

day?

3.72 As shown in the pie chart below, a majority of students (69.5%) travel to their place of study

once per day, with 96.2% of students making two or less return journeys to their place of study

each day (down from 97% in 2015). These results are broadly consistent with the proportions

of return trips in 2015. An exception is that there appears to be a slight shift from one return trip

per day to two-per-day.

0.3%

69.5%

26.7%

2.2% 0.4% 0.9%

Q13. On the days that you are attending the University, on average how

many return journeys do you make between your term time address and

your place of study a day?

0 1 2 3 4 5+

29

3.73 The ‘All Hospitals’ data, as shown in Table 3.31, illustrates that since 2015, a 17% reduction

for one-trip (down from 95% to 78%) and a 22% increase for two-trips (up from 0% to 22%)

respectively has been observed. Similarly, North Village/Stoke Bishop show a 13% decrease

in one-trip (down from 74% to 61%) and a 10% increase in two-trips (up from 24% to 34%),

with Langford also showing a similar pattern (-17% to 65%, and +7% to 25% respectively). In

contrast, Table 3.30 shows that West Village/Clifton shows an increase in students only making

one return trip per day (up 22% from 47% to 69%) and a decrease in two return trips (down

22% from 51% to 29%).


Zero

journeys per day

1 return journey a

day

2 return journeys a day



5 + return journeys a day

North Village 1% 61% 34% 3% 1% 1%

West Village 1% 69% 29% 2% 0% 0%

East Village 0% 69% 27% 2% 0% 2%


Zero

journeys per day

1 return journey a

day




5 + return journeys a day

All Hospitals 0% 78% 22% 0% 0% 0%

Langford 1% 65% 25% 4% 3% 1%

30

Question 14: Apart from when you are attending the University to study, what

other/additional journeys do you make?

3.74 Students were asked to select other / additional journeys that they make other than their journey

to and from their place of study. Respondents were presented with a list of 24 places as shown

below in Table 3.32 and were given the opportunity to select ‘Other’ and provide a separate

answer. Respondents were able to select multiple options.

Table 3.32: Journey Types/Destinations Other Than To/From Place of Study

Type of Journey/Destination 2018 %

Shopping (food) 89.3%

Shopping (non-food) 72.9%

Visiting friends/relatives in Bristol 64.6%

General leisure trips 64.3%

Library 64.1%

Travel to/from home 58.2%

Sports activities (excluding University pool and sports centres) 44.6%

Bristol SU (excluding University swimming pool) 44.2%

University societies 41.0%

Personal healthcare 38.6%

Conferences/workshops 30.9%

University Sports Centre (Tyndall Avenue) 29.7%

Employment 28.4%

Coombe Dingle - Sports complex 23.1%

Additional tuition outside of course 23.0%

Voluntary work 20.1%

University Swimming Pool 17.4%

Student course placement 15.1%

Place of worship 12.7%

Music lesson/rehearsal 11.4%

Other 11.3%

Field work 9.6%

Child/adult care 7.4%

Care of animals e.g. horses 6.0%

3.75 When compared to 2015 survey data results, all of the above trip categories show an increase

in the number of respondents undertaking other/additional trips. This includes shopping for food

(+2%), non-food shopping (+9.3%), visiting friends (+7.3%), leisure trips (+6.8%), library (+6%),

travel to/from home (+9.5%), sports (+8.0%), societies (+8.8%), healthcare (+14.5%),

conferences (+6.0%), sports centre (+11.9%), and accessing the Students Union (+27.5%).

31

Table 3.33: Journey Types/Destinations Other Than To/From Place of Study – Sub-Analysis Q14

Type of Journey/Destination North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Shopping (food) 85% 89% 91% 90% 82%

Shopping (non-food) 75% 75% 74% 73% 70%

Visiting friends/relatives in

Bristol 60% 73% 66% 61% 61%

General leisure trips 57% 67% 66% 67% 66%

Library 66% 72% 67% 55% 56%

Travel to/from home 54% 63% 57% 55% 55%

Sports activities (excluding

University pool and sports

centres) 43% 46% 46% 41% 39%

Bristol SU (excluding University

swimming pool) 45% 49% 45% 43% 37%

University societies 41% 47% 43% 41% 30%

Personal healthcare 42% 43% 39% 27% 30%

Conferences/workshops 32% 36% 31% 35% 28%

University Sports Centre

(Tyndall Avenue) 33% 34% 32% 27% 25%

Employment 31% 30% 30% 31% 28%

Coombe Dingle - Sports

complex 23% 27% 22% 16% 21%

Additional tuition outside of

course 33% 27% 23% 18% 20%

Voluntary work 20% 25% 22% 22% 23%

University Swimming Pool 25% 16% 16% 14% 15%

Student course placement 22% 11% 13% 14% 20%

Place of worship 15% 13% 14% 10% 7%

Music lesson/rehearsal 17% 14% 12% 14% 8%

Other 13% 11% 14% 10% 11%

Field work 12% 12% 13% 6% 8%

Child/adult care 11% 9% 8% 2% 8%

Care of animals e.g. horses 10% 8% 5% 4% 7%

3.76 As Table 3.33 above illustrates, most of the trip categories display reasonably similar

proportions regardless of the accommodation or study location. However, some notable

differences are evident between sites. For instance, students living in the villages were more

likely to travel to the library than those studying at Hospitals/Langford. Students studying at

Langford or the Hospital sites also appear less inclined to undertake sports activities or

societies compared to those living within the city. Both of these factors may be related to the

facilities on offer within the vicinity of each site.

32

Question 15: Do you live elsewhere outside of term-time?

3.77 Overall, 65% of respondents stated that they lived elsewhere outside of term time and 35%

said that they did not. As Tables 3.34 and 3.35 show, Langford was the only site which has

more ‘fixed residents’ than students who reside elsewhere outside of term time. All other

individual sites are broadly consistent with the overall proportions.


Yes No





Yes No


Langford 46% 54%

Question 16: When you travel from your 'non-term time address' to your 'term time

address', how often do you use the following modes of transport?

3.78 A bar chart displaying the mode choice and usage for journeys between term-time and non-

term-time address is presented overleaf.

3.79 It is interesting to see relatively little car use by students travelling between their home and their

term time address. As the survey was undertaken in February it is possible that students are

answering the question based on their most recent journey home over the Christmas holidays.

It is expected that the proportion of students travelling by car at the start and end of term is

significantly higher.

3.80 The majority of students (44.4%) usually travel to their term time address by Public Transport

(Bus/Train/Coach). 13.9% of students usually travel by plane, a very slight fall of 0.1% since

2015.

33

Question 17: If you EVER travel by '''aeroplane''' to your University term time address,

which departure airport do you use?

3.81 Those students who sometimes or always travel by aeroplane to University were asked to

specify the departure airport. A number of respondents seemed to be confused by the wording

of the question as 3.4% started that they departed from Bristol Airport (BRS). A further 6.4%

suggested that they departed from London Heathrow Airport (LHR), 0.5% suggested that they

departed from Stanstead (STN) and 0.8% suggested that they departed from Gatwick. It is not

possible to fly to Bristol from any London airport currently.

1.1%

1.1%

3.8%

5.4%

9.1%

0.3%

0.1%

2.3%

3.8%

14.6%

0.7%

2.8%

1.6%

0.9%

0.2%

3.6%

4.9%

12.0%

0.5%

0.1%

2.5%

3.7%

11.9%

0.3%

1.0%

0.7%

3.3%

0.5%

7.1%

10.9%

26.4%

0.4%

0.0%

6.9%

1.7%

8.4%

0.2%

2.0%

13.9%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Walk

Cycle

Bus

Coach

Train

P&R

Motorbike

Car Driver - Alone

Car Driver - with

passenger

Car Passenger

Car Sharer

Taxi

Aeroplane

Q16. When you travel from your non-term time address to

your term time address, how often do you use the following

modes of transport?

Usually

Sometimes

Occasionally

34

3.82 Table 3.36 below lists out the airport names provided by students and the proportion of students

who selected them (excluding ‘No Responses’ and people who did not fly).

Table 3.36: Journey Destinations Other Than To/From Place of Study for Airport Departures Airport Name % Airport Name %

LHR UK London Heathrow 6.38% WAS USA Washington 0.51%

Other 6.12% YUL CANADA Montreal 0.51%

KUL MALAYSIA Kuala Lumpur 5.36% ABZ UK Aberdeen 0.26%

HKG HONG KONG 3.83% ADL AUSTRALIA Adelaide 0.26%

NCL UK Newcastle 3.83% ALC SPAIN Alicante 0.26%

BRS UK Bristol 3.57% BAK AZERBAIJAN Baku 0.26%

PEK CHINA Beijing 3.32% BDA BERMUDA Bermuda 0.26%

BFS UK Belfast 3.06% BDS ITALY Brindisi 0.26%

CDG FRANCE Paris 2.30% BEG SERBIA Belgrade 0.26%

EDI UK Edinburgh 2.30% BEY LEBANON Beirut 0.26%

MAD SPAIN Madrid 2.04% BHX UK Birmingham 0.26%

SIN SINGAPORE 2.04% BIO SPAIN Bilbao 0.26%

BKK THAILAND Bangkok 1.53% BNE AUSTRALIA Brisbane 0.26%

BCN SPAIN Barcelona 1.28% BOD FRANCE Bordeaux 0.26%

GVA SWITZ`LND Geneva 1.28% BUD HUNGARY Budapest 0.26%

MEX MEXICO Mexico City 1.28% CAI EGYPT Cairo 0.26%

PFO CYPRUS Paphos 1.28% CPT SOUTH AFRICA Cape Town 0.26%

PVG CHINA Shanghai 1.28% CUN MEXICO Cancun 0.26%

SCL CHILE Santiago 1.28% DAC BANGLADESH Dhaka 0.26%

AGP SPAIN Malaga 1.02% DLM TURKEY Dalaman 0.26%

ATH GREECE Athens 1.02% DOH QATAR Doha 0.26%

DEL INDIA Delhi 1.02% EBB UGANDA Entebbe 0.26%

FCO ITALY Rome 1.02% FRA GERMANY Frankfurt 0.26%

MUC GERMANY Munich 1.02% GBE BOTSWANA Gab`ne 0.26%

OSL NORWAY Oslo 1.02% GCI UK Guernsey 0.26%

TLS FRANCE Toulouse 1.02% GIB GIBRALTAR 0.26%

BRU BELGIUM Brussels 0.77% GLA UK Glasgow 0.26%

BUH ROMANIA Bucharest 0.77% HAJ GERMANY Hannover 0.26%

CAN CHINA Guangzhou 0.77% HAM GERMANY Hamburg 0.26%

CMB SRI LANKA Colombo 0.77% HAN VIETNAM Hanoi 0.26%

CPH DENMARK Copenhagen 0.77% HND JAPAN Haneda 0.26%

INN AUSTRIA Innsbruck 0.77% HOU USA Houston 0.26%

KRK POLAND Krakow 0.77% IBZ SPAIN Ibiza 0.26%

LCA CYPRUS Larnaca 0.77% ICN KOREA Seoul Incheon 0.26%

LGW UK London Gatwick 0.77% KHI PAKISTAN Karachi 0.26%

MIL ITALY Milan 0.77% LBA UK Leeds Bradford 0.26%

SXF GERMANY Berlin Schoenefeld 0.77% LJU SLOVENIA Ljubljana 0.26%

AMS NETHERLANDS Amsterdam Schipol 0.51% LUN ZAMBIA Lusaka 0.26%

ARN SWEDEN Stockholm Arlanda 0.51% LUX LUXEMBOURG 0.26%

AUH UAE Abu Dhabi 0.51% MAA INDIA Chennai 0.26%

BGY ITALY Bergamo 0.51% MCT OMAN Muscat 0.26%

BSL FRANCE Basel 0.51% MEL AUSTRALIA Melbourne 0.26%

CGN GERMANY Cologne 0.51% MLA MALTA Malta 0.26%

DUB IRELAND Dublin 0.51% MLE MALDIVES Male 0.26%

DUS GERMANY Dusseldorf 0.51% MNL PHILIPPINES Manila 0.26%

DXB UAE Dubai 0.51% MRS FRANCE Marseille 0.26%

EWR USA Newark 0.51% MRU MAURITIUS 0.26%

IST TURKEY Istanbul 0.51% MXP ITALY Milan Malpensa 0.26%

JER UK Jersey 0.51% NBO KENYA Nairobi 0.26%

JFK USA New York JFK 0.51% NCE FRANCE Nice 0.26%

KDL ESTONIA Tallinn 0.51% NRT JAPAN Tokyo 0.26%

LAX USA Los Angeles 0.51% OPO PORTUGAL Porto 0.26%

LIS PORTUGAL Lisbon 0.51% ORK IRELAND Cork 0.26%

LTN UK London Luton 0.51% PMI SPAIN Palma de Mallorca 0.26%

MOW RUSSIA Moscow 0.51% PSA ITALY Pisa 0.26%

ORD USA Chicago 0.51% RIX LATVIA Riga 0.26%

PHL USA Philadelphia 0.51% SFO USA San Francisco 0.26%

SDQ DOMINICAN R. Santo Domingo 0.51% SGN VIETNAM Ho Chi Minh 0.26%

SOF BULGARIA Sofia 0.51% SVQ SPAIN Seville 0.26%

STN UK London Stansted 0.51% TRN ITALY Turin 0.26%

SVO RUSSIAN Moscow Sheremetyevo 0.51% WAW POLAND Warsaw 0.26%

TPE TAIWAN Taipei Taoyuan 0.51% YOW CANADA Ottawa 0.26%

TRD NORWAY Trondheim 0.51% YVR CANADA Vancouve 0.26%

VCE ITALY Venice 0.51% YYZ CANADA Toronto 0.26%

VNO LITHUANIA Vilnius 0.51%

35

Question 18: In a typical academic year, how often do you/or will you make a return journey between your non-term time address and your term time address?

3.83 A pie chart displaying the frequency of journeys between term time and non-term time

addresses is presented below.

3.84 Respondents were asked to state how often they travelled between their term time and non-

term time addresses. 6% only travelled once a year, 34% of students did so once per term, a

further 28% did so 2–3 times per term and only 2% did so weekly. Nearly a third of respondents

(30%) did not answer this question. The breakdown by accommodation/study sites is presented

below in Tables 3.37 and 3.38 respectively.


Once an academic

year Once a term

2-3 times a term

Every week No

Response

North Village 11% 26% 0% 2% 61%

West Village 6% 34% 0% 1% 59%

East Village 7% 35% 0% 2% 56%


Once an academic

year Once a term

2-3 times a term

Every week No Response

All Hospitals 6% 18% 0% 4% 71%

Langford 11% 23% 0% 4% 62%

6%

34%

28%

2%

30%

Q18. In a typical academic year, how often do you/or will you make a return

journey between your non-term time address and your term time address?

Once an academic year Once a term 2-3 times a term Every week No reponse

36

Car Travel

Question 19: Do you hold a current UK driving licence? 3.85 56% of respondents stated that they had a full UK driving licence, 17% stated that they had a

provisional UK driving licence and 27% stated that they did not have a UK driving licence. This

is identical to the proportions reported in 2015.


Yes No I have a provisional UK license





Yes No I have a provisional UK license


Langford 48% 44% 8%

3.86 At the individual sites, comparison of the results for 2015 with those presented in Table 3.39

identifies that North Village/Stoke Bishop has seen a 5% reduction and West Village/Clifton

reports a 14% reduction in students with full driving licences, and 12% and 10% reductions in

students with provisional licences respectively since 2015.

3.87 Similarly, comparison of the results for 2015 with those presented in Table 3.40 shows that

Langford has seen the largest fall of full licence holders, some 39% down from 87% in 2015 to

48% in 2018, although provisional holders have risen by 4%.

3.88 No significant change is observed at the Hospitals sites.

37

Question 20: Have you brought a car to the University? 3.89 Overall, 81% of respondents stated that they did not bring a car to University with 19% saying

they did. This represents a 1% increase in students bringing a car to University since 2015.


Yes No





Yes No


Langford 15% 85%

3.90 Compared to the results in 2015, the data presented above in Tables 3.41 and 3.42 shows only

a slight increase in students bringing a car to University.

3.91 At individual residential sites significant increases occurred of 12% at the North (i.e. Stoke

Bishop) and 13% at the West (i.e. Clifton) residential villages. In terms of actual student

numbers with cars at the North and West residential village sites, this equates to a total of 39

and 36 students respectively in 2018.

3.92 In contrast, the study locations show significant reductions of 30% at the Hospitals and 60% at

Langford. However, the low number of responses (10 and 11 respectively in 2018) potentially

adds a bias to the percentages. For example, in 2015 at Langford, some 41 respondents

reported having a car.

38

Question 21: Where do you usually park (or plan to park) your car when at your term time accommodation address?

3.93 Students were asked to state where they parked (or planned to park) their car from a list

provided of seven options, including an ‘other’ option. This question excludes anyone who

answered no to Question 20 (i.e. those who did not bring a car to University).

3.94 In terms of changes since the 2015 survey, only three of the categories show a change of

greater than 1%. These are: ‘Free on-street parking’, which has reduced by 13% to 26% of all

responses; use of a ‘Residents Parking Scheme’, which has increased by 5%; and parking on

a ‘Private Driveway’, which has increased by 10%. The remaining five categories make up 13%

of all responses and of these, nearly half use Halls of Residence parking (6%).

3.95 2% of respondents provided an alternative answer, which is a fall of 1% since 2015. These are

summarised in Table 3.43 overleaf. As part of the data cleansing exercise, any respondents

who answered ‘No’ to Question 20 and were directed onto Question 23 but failed to follow the

instructions were removed from the analysis.

Charged on-street

parking

3%

Charged Public/NCP

car park

2%

Free on-street parking

26%

Hall of Residence car

park (with permit)

6%

Hall of Residence car

park (without permit)

0%

Private

garage/driveway

35%

Residents' Parking

Scheme - own permit

26%

Other

2%

Q21. Where do you usually park (or plan to park) your car

when at your term time accommodation address?

39

Table 3.43: Other car parking locations suggested by respondents

Parking Location

Communal car park for block of flats

At the GP practice or hospital during the hours 9-5

Coombe Dingle sports complex

At home because I commute into Bristol. Probably the only Undergrad doing this.

Allocated parking spot

I live outside of Bristol so my car is parked on a drive overnight and then at a car park during the day

Disabled student parking permit

RPZ own permit and Private driveway, equally

Woodland Road car park on a Tuesday evening only

I do not drive my car to university

3.96 The responses from individual residential and study locations are presented in Table 3.44

below with the change in the proportions of responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.45.

Red cells indicate the greatest reductions at each site and green cells indicate the greatest

increases and blue cells reporting the total number of responses at each site.

3.97 As can be observed, there appears to be a move away from the halls car parking to private

driveway parking in the North Village. At West Village, the move has been away from free on-

street parking to a Residents Parking Zone, possibly due to the expansion of the RPZ since

2015. The ‘All Hospitals’ study site group shows a switch away from paid and free on-street

parking to private driveways, and to a lesser extent, halls parking. Langford has seen a move

towards free on-street and halls parking in place of private driveways although private driveway

parking still forms a third of all parking use at this site.

Table 3.44: Usual Parking Locations – Sub-Analysis Q21

Usual parking location North Village

% West

Village % East

Village % All

Hospitals % Langford

%

Hall of Residence car park 11% 5% 4% 15% 8%

Free on-street parking 17% 22% 21% 31% 46%

Charged on-street parking 4% 5% 2% 0% 0%

Residents' Parking Scheme 22% 34% 32% 23% 15%

Charged Public/NCP car park 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Private garage/driveway 37% 34% 38% 31% 31%

Other 4% 0% 4% 0% 0%

TOTAL RESPONSES 46 41 53 13 13

Table 3.45: Usual Parking Locations – Sub-Analysis Q21 – Change Since 2015

Usual parking location

North Village % (proxy Stoke Bishop)

West Village % (Proxy Clifton)

East Village %

All Hospitals %

(proxy Southmead)

Langford %

Hall of Residence car park -25% -18% N/A 9% 6%

Free on-street parking -17% -31% N/A -10% 10%

Charged on-street parking 2% 5% N/A -12% 0%

Residents' Parking Scheme 8% 24% N/A 5% 2%

Charged Public/NCP car park 4% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Private garage/driveway 26% 21% N/A 13% -18%

Other 1% 0% N/A -6% 0%

40

Question 22: Where do you usually park (or plan to park) your car when attending lectures/seminars at the University?

3.98 59.4% of students responding to this question stated that they did not drive their car to lectures

or seminars which is a reduction of 6.6% since 2015. The responses from those who stated

that they did drive to lectures or seminars is summarised in the chart below.

3.99 As shown above, around a half of respondents who drive to lectures/seminars either paid for

on-street parking (+3.8% since 2015) or park in a University car park with or without a permit

(+10.1%), which is a combined rise of around 13% since 2015. The use of free on-street parking

has halved (-13.6%) whereas the proportion using the Residents Parking Scheme has doubled

(+6%) since 2015.

23.8%

15.2%

11.4%

1.0%

24.3%

3.8%4.3%

2.9%

11.0%

2.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Q22. Where do you usually park (or plan to park) your car

when attending lectures/seminars at the University?

41

3.100 The responses provided by the remaining respondents who provided an alternative answer are

presented in Table 3.46 below.

Table 3.46: Where do you usually park (or plan to park) your car when attending lectures/seminars at the University – Other responses

Park at the Mall, Cribbs Causeway then get the bus to Uni.

Mixture of places, visitor permits, friends driveways, pay and display etc.

Renting a driveway

My father’s office because you b******s threatened to report me to the police if I

continued parking on University property.

Never use

3.101 The responses from individual residential and study locations is presented in Table 3.47 below

with the change in the proportions of responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.48 where red

cells indicate the greatest reductions at each site, green cells indicate the greatest increases

and blue cells report the total number of responses at each site.

3.102 This shows that halls of residence parking for lectures/seminars and free on-street parking

(excluding Langford) is falling in all locations and is being replaced by a mix of Residents

Parking and Charged Parking at all sites except Langford where the move is more towards

parking on private driveways, although some increases are observed in most parking

categories at this location. However, the low number of responses in each category (17) limits

any meaningful comparative analysis.

Table 3.47: Usual Parking Locations – Sub-Analysis Q22

Usual parking location North Village

% West

Village % East

Village % All

Hospitals % Langford

%

Hall of Residence car park 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Free on-street parking 15% 7% 35% 0% 17%

Charged on-street parking 38% 36% 41% 50% 17%

Residents' Parking Scheme 15% 36% 12% 50% 17%

Charged Public/NCP car park 23% 14% 12% 0% 17%

Private garage/driveway 0% 0% 0% 0% 33%

Other 8% 7% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL RESPONSES 13 14 17 4 6

Table 3.48: Usual Parking Locations – Sub-Analysis Q22 – Change Since 2015

Usual parking location

North Village % (proxy Stoke Bishop)

West Village % (Proxy Clifton)

East Village %

All Hospitals %

(proxy Southmead)

Langford %

Hall of Residence car park -27% -26% N/A -13% -19%

Free on-street parking -12% -21% N/A -38% 12%

Charged on-street parking 11% 11% N/A 50% 15%

Residents' Parking Scheme 15% 36% N/A 50% 17%

Charged Public/NCP car park 15% 8% N/A 0% 15%

Private garage/driveway 0% 0% N/A 0% 31%

Other 0% -6% N/A -13% -12%

42

Question 23: Are you a member of a car club whilst at the University? 3.103 Only 1% of respondents stated that they are a member of a Car Club, with a further 5% not

providing any answer to this question and the majority at 94% not being a member.

3.104 This general pattern of non-car club membership is repeated at all sites. Analyses of the sub-

assessment shown below in Tables 3.49 and 3.50 with very little variation between sites.


Yes No No Response



East Village <1% 94% 5%


Yes No No Response


Langford 0% 96% 4%

Yes

1%

No

94%

No Response

5%

Q23. Are you a member of a car club whilst at the

University?

Yes No No Response

43

Public Transport Question 24. Do you have a Unibus Year Pass for travel on the U1 and First Bus services

3, 4, 9 & 72?

3.105 A majority of student responders (71%) do not have a Unibus pass. This general pattern is

repeated in the sub-analysis for individual site groups, as shown below in Tables 3.51 and 3.52.

Positive responses range from 21% (West and East Villages) to 29% (All Hospitals).


Yes No Unsure No Response







Langford 23% 77% 0% 1%

Yes

27%

No

71%

Unsure

1%No Response

1%

Q24. Do you have a Unibus Year pass for travel on the U1 and

First Bus services 3, 4,9 and 72?


44

Questions 24a-c:

a) How often do you use the U1?

b) How often do you use one of the following First Bus services 3, 4, 9 & 72?

c) How often do you use other local bus services in Bristol whole at University?

3.106 As shown in the bar chart above, between 9-10% of respondents use bus services on most

days. However, a significant proportion of students never use the U1 service (61%) compared

to students who never use other services (31-35%).

3.107 Some 20% of respondents only use the U1 occasionally, whereas the occasional use of other

services is much higher, at between 46 and 52%. Some 9 to 10% of respondents failed to

provide an answer to the question (and, therefore, presumably do not travel by bus).

9% 10% 9%

20%

46% 52%

61%

35%31%

10% 9% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

24a 24b 24c

24a) How often do you use the U1?

24b) How often do you use one of the following First Bus services 3, 4, 9 & 72?

24c) How often do you use other local bus services in Bristol whole at

University?

Most Days Occasionally Never No Response

45

3.108 As shown below in Tables 3.53 to 3.58, there is very little significant variation between the

use of different bus services at each of the residential and study site groups. Surprisingly,

residents of the three village sites appear less inclined to use the U1 service and prefer to use

‘other’ services, although generally only for occasional use and not as their primary travel

mode. Similarly, at the Hospitals and Langford use of ‘other’ bus services is predominant,

which may reflect the limited bus services which access the Langford Campus site.

Table 3.53: Residences Sub-analysis Q24a – U1 only





Table 3.54: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q24a – U1 only



Langford 11% 15% 63% 10%

Table 3.55: Residences Sub-analysis Q24b – 3, 4, 9 & 72





Table 3.56: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q24b – 3, 4, 9 & 72



Langford 13% 27% 52% 8%

Table 3.57: Residences Sub-analysis Q24c – Other Buses





Table 3.58: Study Locations Sub-analysis Q24c – Other Buses



Langford 8% 61% 23% 8%

46

Cycling

Question 25: If you cycle, where do you usually park your bicycle?

3.109 Students who cycled were asked to state where they usually parked their bike when they were

at their place of study (Table 3.59), and when they were at their usual place of term time

residence (Table 3.60). The 455 responses and the changes from the percentages reported

from the 2015 survey analysis are shown below.

Table 3.59: Cycle parking locations at usual place of study

Cycle parking location 2018 Count

2018 % 2015 % 2015-2018 Difference

Bicycle hoop 329 72.3% 62.6% 9.7%

On railings 58 12.7% 20.9% -8.2%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 38 8.4% 9.3% -0.9%

I'd like to cycle, but I do not because there is nowhere to park my bike

7 1.5% 2.6% -1.1%

Inside the building 11 2.4% 2.0% 0.4%

Garage 6 1.3% 1.2% 0.1%

On lamp posts 3 0.7% 0.4% 0.3%

Garden shed 2 0.4% 0.3% 0.1%

Garden 1 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

3.110 In general, at the places of study, there appears to be a move away from locking bikes to railings

(-8.2% since 2015) towards locking on formal bicycle hoops (+9.7%). Also, there has been a

slight reduction (-1.1%) in persons being unable to find suitable parking facilities at the study

locations.

Table 3.60: Cycle parking locations at usual accommodation location

Cycle parking location 2018 Count

2018 % 2015 % 2015-2018 Difference

Bicycle hoop 31 6.4% 6.7% -0.3%

On railings 21 4.4% 4.4% 0.0%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 96 19.9% 18.5% 1.4%


2 0.4% 0.1% 0.3%

Inside the building 223 46.3% 45.7% 0.6%

Garage 45 9.3% 8.8% 0.5%

On lamp posts 5 1.0% 0.4% 0.6%

Garden shed 30 6.2% 7.3% -1.1%

Garden 29 6.0% 6.9% -0.9%

3.111 In contrast, there appears to be very little change in the cycle parking locations at students’

term time accommodation addresses. Storage within the main buildings is still the main location

for nearly half (46.3%) of all respondents who own bicycles, a rise of only 0.6% since 2015.

The only other changes greater than 1% relate to a move away from storing within garden shed

(-1.1%) towards more secure storage facilities (+1.4%).

47

3.112 For cycle storage at study locations, the responses from individual residential and study

locations for 2018 is presented in Table 3.61 below with the change in the proportions of

responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.62. Red cells indicate the greatest reductions at

each site with green cells indicate the greatest increases and the total number of responses for

each category are highlighted blue.

Table 3.61: Cycle parking locations at usual place of study – Sub-Analysis Q25a

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village % All Hospitals

% Langford

%

Bicycle hoop 57% 72% 68% 100% 58%

On railings 13% 19% 16% 0% 17%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 20% 7% 11% 0% 17%

I'd like to cycle, but I do not because there is nowhere to park my bike 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

Inside the building 3% 2% 2% 0% 0%

Garage 3% 0% 0% 0% 8%

On lamp posts 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Garden shed 3% 0% 2% 0% 0%

Garden 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ACTUAL RESPONSES 30 43 63 8 12

Table 3.62: Cycle parking locations at usual place of study – Sub-Analysis Q25a Change since 2015

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village % All Hospitals

% Langford

%

Bicycle hoop -2% -18% N/A 44% 1%

On railings -15% 9% N/A -11% 17%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility

13% 7% N/A -22% -12%


-3% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Inside the building 3% 2% N/A -11% -14%

Garage 1% 0% N/A 0% 8%

On lamp posts 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Garden shed 3% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Garden 0% 0% N/A 0% 0%

3.113 As shown above, the dominant cycle storage location at the place of study is on bicycle hoops

for all sub categories of analysis. Although students at the ‘All Hospitals’ sites use cycle hoops

exclusively, each of the other sites has between one-quarter and one-third of cycle parking on

railings, or within a secure cycle facility.

3.114 Since 2015, as Table 3.62 shows, residents of the North Village have seen a move from railings

(-15%) towards secure storage (+13%) at their place of study. The West Village shows a move

from bicycle hoops (-18%) to railings (+9%) and secure storage (+7%). The ‘All Hospitals’ site

only has cycle stored on cycle hoops now (+44%) whilst Langford shows a reduction in cycles

stored within buildings (-14%) and an increase in bikes being locked to railings (+17%).

48

However, the low number of responses at these two study sites (8 & 12 respectively) over-

emphasises the swing in proportional change.

3.115 For cycle storage at accommodation locations, the responses from individual residential and

study locations for 2018 are presented in Table 3.63 below with the change in the proportions

of responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.64. Red cells indicate the greatest reductions at

each site, green cells indicate the greatest increases and the total number of responses for

each category are highlighted blue.

Table 3.63: Cycle parking locations at usual place of accommodation – Sub-Analysis Q25b

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Bicycle hoop 3% 12% 5% 13% 17%

On railings 7% 12% 2% 0% 0%



0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Inside the building 47% 47% 49% 38% 42%

Garage 20% 7% 8% 0% 0%

On lamp posts 3% 0% 3% 0% 0%

Garden shed 0% 12% 8% 0% 17%

Garden 0% 7% 11% 0% 0%

ACTUAL RESPONSES 30 46 65 9 11

Table 3.64: Cycle parking locations at usual place of accommodation – Sub-Analysis Q25b Change since 2015

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Bicycle hoop -16% 12% N/A 13% 17%

On railings 5% 12% N/A -11% 0%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility -47% -58% N/A 52% 17%


0% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Inside the building 42% 27% N/A -7% 2%

Garage 17% -3% N/A -11% -20%

On lamp posts 3% 0% N/A 0% 0%

Garden shed -3% 12% N/A -11% 7%

Garden -2% 7% N/A -11% -30%

3.116 As shown above, the dominant cycle storage location within the three residential villages and

for Langford is within a building. Nearly two-thirds of ‘All Hospitals’ students store cycles within

a locked cycle facility, which may reflect communal cycle storage at those locations.

3.117 As Table 3.64 shows, since 2015, the North and West Villages show a move from enclosed

cycle storage (-47% & -58%) towards internal storage (+42% & +27%). ‘All Hospitals’ students

have seen a move away from most types of storage towards enclosed/secure cycle stores being

used (+52%). Langford students report a reduction in cycles stored in garages (-20%) and

gardens (-30%) with equal increases in the use of bicycle hoops and enclosed/secure facilities.

49

However, both these sites have a low response rate (9 & 11 respectively) so limited weight can

be applied to the analysis and the swing in proportions should be viewed with caution.

Motorcycling

Question 26: If you ride to study, where do you usually park your

motorbike/moped/scooter?

3.118 Students who travelled by motorbike, moped or scooter were asked to state where they usually

parked their bike when they were at their place of study, and when they were at their usual

place of term time residence. There were 14 or 15 responses from motorcyclists to this question

which, due to the small sample size, may display large percentage changes which are actually

small in terms of overall student responses. Despite this, the responses are displayed in Tables

3.65 (place of study) and Table 3.66 (term-time accommodation location) below.

Table 3.65: Motorcycle parking locations at usual place of study

Motorcycle parking location 2018 %

2015 %

2015-2018 Difference

Marked motorbike bay - on street 26.7% 8.3% 18.4%

Pavement 20.0% 37.5% -17.5%

Marked motorbike bay - on UoB Estate 20.0% 12.5% 7.5%

Bicycle hoop 13.3% 12.5% 0.8%

I'd like to motorcycle, but I do not because there is nowhere to park my motorbike

6.7% 8.3% -1.6%

Car parking bay - on street 6.7% 4.2% 2.5%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 6.7% 4.2% 2.5%

Motorbike anchor 0.0% 8.3% -8.3%

Car parking bay - on University Estate 0.0% 4.2% -4.2%

3.119 As Table 3.65 shows, around one quarter of respondents use a marked on-street motorcycle

bay place of study with a fifth each parking on the pavement, or a marked bay within the

University at their. This shows a move from pavement parking to parking within marked on-

street bays. At accommodation locations (Table 3.66), there appears to be a slight move

towards on-street parking in a car bay (+27.7%), secure facilities (+6.3%) and using an anchor

(+6.3%) from all other parking options. However, due to the low number of respondents (15 at

study sites and 14 at accommodation), care should be taken when drawing conclusions.

50

Table 3.66: Motorcycle parking locations at term time residence/accommodation

Motorcycle parking location 2018 %

2015 %

2015-2018 Difference

Car parking bay - on street 35.7% 8.0% 27.7%

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 14.3% 8.0% 6.3%

Garage 14.3% 28.0% -13.7%

Motorbike anchor 14.3% 8.0% 6.3%

Garden 7.1% 4.0% 3.1%


7.1% 8.0% -0.9%

Pavement 7.1% 8.0% -0.9%

Bicycle hoop 0.0% 4.0% -4.0%

Driveway 0.0% 8.0% -8.0%

Marked motorbike bay - on UoB Estate 0.0% 4.0% -4.0%

Park and Ride car park 0.0% 4.0% -4.0%

Private parking 0.0% 4.0% -4.0%

University car park 0.0% 4.0% -4.0%

3.120 For motorcycle storage at study locations, the responses from individual residential and study

locations for 2018 are presented in Table 3.67 below, with the change in the proportions of

responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.68, where red cells indicate the greatest reductions

at each site and green cells indicate the greatest increases.

Table 3.67: Motorcycle parking locations at usual place of study – Sub-Analysis Q25b

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Pavement 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bicycle hoop 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Marked motorbike bay - on UoB Estate

50% 0% 50% 0% 0%


0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Marked motorbike bay - on street

0% 100% 50% 0% 0%

Motorbike anchor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Car parking bay - on street 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Car parking bay - on University Estate

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


51

Table 3.68: Motorcycle parking locations at usual place of study – Sub-Analysis Q25b Change since 2015

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Pavement 50% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Bicycle hoop 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A


50% 0% N/A N/A N/A


0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Marked motorbike bay - on street

0% 100% N/A N/A N/A

Motorbike anchor 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Car parking bay - on street 0% -100% N/A N/A N/A

Car parking bay - on University Estate

-100% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

3.121 As shown above, the West Village students use marked on-street bays whilst North Village

students park on the pavement, or marked bays within University sites. One student at Langford

was identified as occasionally riding a motorcycle in Q11 but did not provide details of parking.

3.122 Despite these issues, since 2015 as Table 3.68 shows, both sites have seen a move from car

bays (-100%) towards pavement and on-site motorcycle bays. However, no data was provided

for All Hospitals or Langford, and the maximum number of responses from a single ‘Village’ site

was just two, which limits the value of a comparative assessment.

3.123 For motorcycle storage at accommodation locations, the responses are presented in Table

3.69 below with the change in the proportions of responses since 2015 presented in Table 3.70,

where red cells indicate the greatest reductions at each site and green cells indicate the

greatest increases.

Table 3.69: Motorcycle parking locations at usual place of accommodation – Sub-Analysis Q25b

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Pavement 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Garage 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Garden 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A


0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Motorbike anchor 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Car parking bay - on street 100% 0% 100% N/A N/A

Bicycle hoop 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A


0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Park and Ride car park 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Private parking 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Driveway 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

University car park 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A

52

Table 3.70: Motorcycle parking locations at usual place of accommodation – Sub-Analysis Q25b Change since 2015

Location North

Village % West

Village % East

Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Pavement 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Garage 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Garden 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A


0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Motorbike anchor 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Car parking bay - on street 100% -100% N/A N/A N/A

Bicycle hoop 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Marked motorbike bay - on University Estate

-100% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Park and Ride car park 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Private parking 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Driveway 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

University car park 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

Enclosed/locked bicycle facility 0% 0% N/A N/A N/A

3.124 As shown above, the dominant cycle storage location within the residential villages is on-street

parking bays, although there was only a single student response at two sites in 2018. On the

basis of these very small samples, interpretation of the statistics is not meaningful.

3.125 As Table 3.70 shows, the North Village has seen a move from enclosed marked motorcycle

bays within the University to on street parking in bays. In the West Village, no respondents

identified their motorcycle parking locations which results in a reduction in on-street motorcycle

parking within a car parking bay since 2015 (-100%).

53

Travel Plan Measures Question 27: Are you aware of the following University initiatives?

3.126 Respondents were asked to state whether they were aware of a range of Travel Plan measures

and whether they had made use of the measures. The results are summarised in Table 3.71

below.

Table 3.71: 2018 Travel plan measure awareness

Travel Plan Measures No I am

not aware

Yes I am

aware, but

have not

used it

Yes I am

aware and

have used

it

Unibus U1 service (University bus service) 13% 40% 46%

The free bicycle clinic - Every other Wednesday 64% 30% 6%

Free bicycle security tagging 83% 15% 2%

The discounted lock and light sales 83% 13% 4%

A bicycle budi scheme 97% 3% 0%

A walking budi scheme 97% 2% 0%

Student discounts at local outdoor retailers 73% 18% 9%

Student discounts with Co-Wheels Car Club 95% 4% 1%

Transport mailing groups 95% 4% 2%

The University's car share scheme 92% 8% 0%

Transport Plan Website 88% 9% 3%

3.127 The total number of respondents to each of these measures varies from 2,088 for the ‘Walking

Budi scheme’ and the ‘Travel Plan Website’ up to 2,121 for the Unibus U1 service.

3.128 As can be observed, The Unibus U1 service is the most well-known and well used Travel Plan

measure, with 86% of students being aware of it. All other measures have a high number of

students (i.e. over two-thirds) not being aware of the specific measure with only the ‘Free bike

clinic’ and ‘Student discounts for outdoor retailers’ showing over 25% awareness.

3.129 The above data is plotted on a stacked bar chart overleaf to illustrate the results. This clearly

illustrates that there is a lack of awareness of most Travel Plan initiatives except the U1 bus

service.

54

3.130 In terms of awareness of Travel Plan initiatives at study and accommodation locations, Table

3.72 overleaf shows the proportions of persons who are not aware of the initiatives. This gives

a reasonable overview of any successes in the promotion, marketing and publicising of the

Travel Plan initiatives.

3.131 The ‘not aware’ pattern shown in Table 3.72 is broadly consistent with the data displayed in the

chart above.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Un

ibu

s U

1 s

erv

ice

(U

niv

ers

ity b

us

serv

ice

)

Th

e f

ree

bic

ycl

e c

lin

ic -

Eve

ry o

the

r W

ed

ne

sda

y

Fre

e b

icycl

e s

ecu

rity

ta

gg

ing

Th

e d

isco

un

ted

lo

ck a

nd

lig

ht

sale

s

A b

icycl

e b

ud

i sc

he

me

A w

alk

ing

bu

di

sch

em

e

Stu

de

nt

dis

cou

nts

at

loca

l o

utd

oo

r re

tail

ers

Stu

de

nt

dis

cou

nts

wit

h C

o-W

he

els

Ca

r C

lub

Tra

nsp

ort

ma

ilin

g g

rou

ps

Th

e U

niv

ers

ity's

ca

r sh

are

sch

em

e

Tra

nsp

ort

Pla

n W

eb

site

Q27. Are you aware of the following University initiatives?

No I am not aware Yes I am aware, but have not used it Yes I am aware and have used it

55

Table 3.72: 2018 Travel plan measure awareness – Proportion of Students ‘not aware’

North

Village %

West Village %

East Village %

All Hospitals

%

Langford %

Unibus U1 service (University bus service)

18% 15% 13% 14% 15%

The free bicycle clinic - Every other Wednesday

64% 60% 63% 55% 58%

Free bicycle security tagging 76% 60% 63% 55% 58%

The discounted lock and light sales 77% 80% 82% 82% 77%

A bicycle budi scheme 87% 95% 95% 86% 87%

A walking budi scheme 88% 94% 96% 94% 85%

Student discounts at local outdoor retailers

65% 75% 71% 61% 63%

Student discounts with Co-Wheels Car Club

85% 92% 94% 94% 86%

Transport mailing groups 86% 93% 94% 84% 83%

The University's car share scheme 85% 86% 91% 84% 77%

Transport Plan Website 81% 84% 86% 86% 75%

Question 28: In your opinion, what further action should the University take to encourage

students to travel more sustainably?

3.132 The final question of the survey is open ended and asked students for their thoughts on what

actions could be undertaken by the University to encourage an increase in sustainable travel

amongst its students.

3.133 Table 3.73 overleaf presents a summary of the most popular responses. Where possible, to

keep the number of responses to a manageable level, responses with similar themes have

been grouped together to provide an indication of the popularity amongst students for various

measures to promote sustainable travel.

3.134 In addition, Table 3.74 provides a summary of any single issue or unique responses. Many of

these are incomplete, irrational or pedantic but have been included for completeness and to

provide a comprehensive overview of current student opinions.

56

Table 3.73: 2018 Travel Plan measure awareness

Travel Plan Measures Count

% of All

respondents

(2,184)

% of answers to

this question

(1,057)

Free/discounted bus travel 247 11.3% 23.4%

Advertise Travel Plan initiatives 212 9.7% 20.1%

Sheltered cycle parking 92 4.2% 8.7%

More bike racks 78 3.6% 7.4%

Improve bus frequency 43 2.0% 4.1%

Improve cycle lanes 42 1.9% 4.0%

Bike rental 33 1.5% 3.1%

Improve bus reliability 26 1.2% 2.5%

Bus to Langford 24 1.1% 2.3%

Bus to Coombe Dingle 23 1.1% 2.2%

More bus routes 19 0.9% 1.8%

Rewards/discounts for sustainable travel 17 0.8% 1.6%

Better car parking prices for those of us who have

no choice but to drive in. 16 0.7% 1.5%

Pedestrianisation/discourage car use 14 0.6% 1.3%

Car share website 13 0.6% 1.2%

Orientation/workshops during fresher’s week 14 0.6% 1.3%

More accommodation in closer locations 11 0.5% 1.0%

Expand U1 buses 10 0.5% 0.9%

Bike sale scheme 9 0.4% 0.9%

Electric buses 8 0.4% 0.8%

Remove hills 8 0.4% 0.8%

Reduce car parking 7 0.3% 0.7%

Showers/changing area for cyclists/lockers 7 0.3% 0.7%

Improve footways/surfacing 7 0.3% 0.7%

Organise timetables 7 0.3% 0.7%

‘Bike to Uni' scheme similar to Bike to Work 6 0.3% 0.6%

Bike clinic 5 0.2% 0.5%

Cycle lessons/safety course 5 0.2% 0.5%

Free/discounted bicycles 5 0.2% 0.5%

Free/discounted rail travel 5 0.2% 0.5%

Improve evening transport provisions 5 0.2% 0.5%

Posters/Notice boards 5 0.2% 0.5%

More bus stops 4 0.2% 0.4%

Open up locked cycle stores to students 4 0.2% 0.4%

Oyster card system to speed up boarding 4 0.2% 0.4%

Park & Ride at M4 4 0.2% 0.4%

Discounts at outdoor retailers 3 0.1% 0.3%

Funding for placement travel 3 0.1% 0.3%

Bike racks on buses 2 0.1% 0.2%

Improve rail connections to Clifton Down 2 0.1% 0.2%

Publish lectures online 2 0.1% 0.2%

Promote car share (esp. for staff) 2 0.1% 0.2%

57

3.135 As Table 3.73 illustrates, 247 students (23.4% of answers to this question) indicated that they

would like to see an expansion to the free/discounted bus services, often to include non-Fresher

students, those living outside halls, and possibly additional non-U1 services.

3.136 The second most popular response was to improve advertising of the various Travel Plan and

sustainability measures currently promoted by the University with 212 responses (20.1% of

answers), which includes the promotion of car sharing websites (12 responses). Several

students commented that they were unaware of many of the initiatives, with some suggesting

that the provision of posters and/or notice boards would help, plus the circulation of reminders

by email would also publicise the initiatives.

3.137 Improvements to cycling was a common theme with 92 respondents specifically asking for more

sheltered/secure cycle parking (as many have had their bikes stolen) and a further 78

requesting additional bike racks in key locations. 42 wanted improved cycle lanes within the

city with 7 requesting lockers, showers and changing facilities to be provided at study locations.

3.138 In addition to the above physical cycle improvements, alternative bicycle measures were also

suggested including provide a free/cheap bike rental scheme (33 responses), set up a bike sale

for students leaving Bristol to pass on their unwanted bikes to new students rather than just

leaving them chained up around the city (9 responses), and setting up a reward scheme for

sustainable travellers (17 responses) such as discounts in the University cafes. 6 or less

students requested bike safety lessons/bike clinic, a ‘Bike to Uni’ scheme similar to ‘Bike to

Work’, bike racks on buses, free bikes for students and the opening up of existing sheltered

cycle stores (possibly used for staff parking) for use by students.

3.139 Improvements to public transport was a common theme amongst respondents including

improving bus frequency (43), improve reliability (26), upgrade to electric/hydrogen buses (8),

add additional evening buses (5) and set up an Oyster Card scheme to reduce delays related

to boarding (4). The main requests related to the provision of a regular bus to Langford Campus

(24), provide a bus to Coombe Dingle, especially during exams (23), and/or increase the

number of bus routes (19). Most students liked the U1 bus service but several (10) would like

the route expanded to serve areas including Churchill, Easton, Southville, Temple Meads,

Stoke Bishop, Cotham, Redland and Marlborough. There were also requests for increased

early morning, late evening and Sunday services.

3.140 Other positive suggestions include publishing lectures on-line, organise timetables to condense

many lectures to a single day and provide orientation/workshops during Fresher’s week which

should include training in the use of the free bus passes. Other suggestions include removing

all hills (8), better car parking (16) and moving accommodation closer to the University (11).

58

3.141 A summary of any remaining unique responses to Question 28 are presented below in Table

3.74.

Table 3.74: Additional Travel Plan Measures Suggested by Students

Travel Plan Measures

Actively encourage more students to walk/cycle more.

Be more efficient with U1 buses

Beautiful scenery whilst walking. Bright lights during the dark whilst walking.

Bicycle routes in Langford.

CCTV by bikes

Chairlift / gondola

Charge a small fee for Unibus

Cheap travel/ more exciting ways of travel...

Cheaper Rent in Bristol

Fewer and fewer students in Churchill Hall are using the U1 service from the Hiatt Baker Transport hub

in Stoke Bishop, due to the 12 minute walk required to get there. This has subsequently caused the

nearby No 4 bus (Downleaze Road) to become very overcrowded and often incapable of taking the

dozens of students wanting to get on. Instead of driving down the A4018 to the top of Whiteladies

Road, it might be worth considering redirecting the U1 to where Saville Road and Stoke Hill intersect.

This would be a very minor detour, and might significantly reduce strain on the No 4. Hope this helps!

Free cookies

freeze bus ticket prices

higher bus fares

Improve street lighting

Improved pedestrian crossings esp. at St Michaels Hill

Include sustainability in all core modules where applicable.

Increase parking at Langford

Less frequent buses would encourage more walking

Less Homework

More trains on Severn Beach line

Move the Student Union to a central location

Offer petrol refunds for students who life share in veterinary sciences living around Langford.

Peter Andre

Provide a Crèche

Provide a place to serve hot food and enough seats to sit down eating.

Provide driving lessons that can be booked exclusively for university students.

Reduce costs

Shuttle service

Somewhere warm to wait for trains!

Stop 1st years bringing their cars with obviously fake reasons for needing a permit.

Tell the Bristol council to get better transport. It's absolutely rubbish.

The ability to forfeit a bus pass for a university bicycle

Travel Plan App developed for SmartPhones

59

4. CARBON EMISSIONS OF TRAVEL

4.1 Based on the information collected in the surveys it is possible to provide an indication of the

carbon footprint of students travelling between their term time address and their place of study.

4.2 The calculation is a necessarily broad brush assessment, as no details were collected regarding

the engine size and fuel type of cars used by students who drove.

4.3 The calculation is based on a typical week, taking into account the number of days a student

typically travels to their place of study, the number of return journeys they typically make on

each of those days and the mode/s of travel used.

4.4 The distance between term time addresses and places of study is taken as a straight line

distance calculated between the geographic coordinate of each location. This under-represents

the actual distance travelled between the two points.

4.5 The quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) assumed to be generated per mile per respondent by

each mode of travel is provided in Table 4.1 below. The figures are taken from UK Government

conversion factors provided for company reporting. The figures were obtained in 2015 from

http://www.ukconversionfactorscarbonsmart.co.uk/, which is a website produced by the

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Department of Energy & Climate

Change.

Table 4.1: Carbon Dioxide Emissions per Mile Travelled

Source g CO2/ mile

Average Car (Petrol) 306.9

Car share (driver or Passenger) - assumed 50% of average car 153.5

Bus/Coach (per passenger mile) 161.4

Taxi (per passenger mile) 281.2

Train (per passenger mile) 72.4

Motorcycle 187.4

4.6 The average distance travelled by each student between their term time address and their usual

place of study over a typical week has been calculated based upon the answers to a number

of questions. First, the distance between their term time address and their usual place of study

was calculated based on the answers to Question 6 (term time address) and Question 8 (usual

place of study).

4.7 The number of journeys per week was then calculated using the answers to Question 10

(number of days travelling to place of study) and Question 13 (return journeys to place of study

per day). This was then multiplied by the distance between their term time address and their

usual place of study and then doubled to account for the journey to and the return journey from

their place of study.

60

4.8 The distance travelled in a week was then split between the modes used by respondents which

were provided in answer to Question 10. For example, if a student stated that they usually travel

by bus (and did not state that they used any other mode) it has been assumed that 100% of

the distance they travel in a typical week was by bus. If, alternatively, the student said that they

usually walk, sometimes travel by bike and occasionally travel by bus, it has been assumed

that 50% of the distance travelled in a typical week was on foot, 33% of the distance was

travelled on a bike and 17% of the distance was undertaken by bus.

4.9 Any records which were incomplete in terms of accommodation address, study address, vehicle

mode choice, daily/weekly trip numbers were excluded from the assessment. This resulted in

a reduction in the assessed records from 2,184 records in the main assessment to 2,148

records for the emissions calculations.

4.10 The calculated distance travelled by each student by each mode was then added together and

divided by the number of survey respondents to calculate the average distance travelled by

each mode by each student. The results as summarised Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2: Distance travelled per week (miles) based on 2148 viable responses

Mode

Miles travelled by 2148 students in a

typical week

Average miles per student

Walk/run (all/most of the way) 12783 5.951

Bicycle 2760 1.285

U1 Bus Service 2921 1.360

Other Bus service 7403 3.447

Coach 1649 0.768

Park and Ride (bus or rail) 741 0.345

Train 6500 3.026

Motorbike/Moped/Scooter 104 0.048

Car Driver - on your own 7723 3.595

Car Driver - with at least 1 passenger 1258 0.586

Car Passenger 2585 1.203

Car Sharer (car sharing scheme) 91 0.042

Taxi 634 0.295

Wheelchair/mobility scooter 1 0.001

4.11 The average distance travelled per student by mode was then multiplied by the CO2 emissions

produced per mile by each mode as set out in Table 4.1.

61

4.12 This provides an estimate of the grams of CO2 produced on average by each student when

travelling to and from their place of study in a week. The results of the analysis can be seen in

Table 4.3 below.

Table 4.3: CO2 Emissions Produced by Each Student on Average by Mode

Mode Grams of CO2 produced per student per

week through travel to study

Walk/run (all/most of the way) 0.00

Bicycle 0.00

U1 Bus Service 219.48

Other Bus service 556.27

Coach 123.89

Park and Ride (bus or rail) 55.65

Train 219.10

Motorbike/Moped/Scooter 9.09

Car Driver - on your own 1103.40

Car Driver - with at least 1 passenger 89.88

Car Passenger 184.66

Car Sharer (car sharing scheme) 6.48

Taxi 83.05

Wheelchair/mobility scooter 0.00

4.13 Based on the 2018 survey results, each student at the University produces on average 2,651g

of CO2 per week travelling between their term time address and their place of study compared

to 2,249g in the 2015 survey, equivalent of an 18% increase.

4.14 Multiplying this average figure by the 23,161 students attending the University in 2018 gives a

total carbon footprint of 61,399kg CO2 per week associated with travel to study.

4.15 This compares to 41,219kg of CO2 per week in 2015 for 18,328 students (as outlined in the

2015 Travel Survey Report - Rev A – April 2018). This represents a 49% increase in CO2

emissions from 2015 to 2018 for a 26% increase in total student numbers of 4,833 persons.

Observations and Comparison with 2015

4.16 It is noted that if travel habits remained the same as in 2015, then the increase in student

numbers would lead to an increase in CO2 in 2018 of +26% in any event. In light of the increase

significantly above this level, a detailed examination of the dataset was undertaken to identify

any anomalies that may skew the results.

62

4.17 Table 4.4 below presents a comparison of the 2018 and 2015 datasets to highlight any mode

share proportions, or distances travelled, that have changed significantly, with a view to

providing possible explanations for the difference, and to suggest amendment that may reduce

any bias. The three highest increases are highlighted red and the three highest decreases in

green.

Table 4.4: CO2 Comparison of Emissions Produced by Each Student on Average by Mode 2015 & 2018

Mode

Grams of CO2 produced per

student per week 2015

Grams of CO2 produced per

student per week 2018

Actual Change (g of

CO2)

Change %

Walk/run (all/most of the way) 0.00 0.00 0 0

Bicycle 0.00 0.00 0 0

U1 Bus Service (Wessex 16 in 2015)

314.43 219.48 -94.95 -30%

Other Bus service 338.53 556.27 217.74 64%

Coach 89.94 123.89 33.95 38%

Park and Ride (bus or rail) 92.60 55.65 -36.95 -40%

Train 134.28 219.10 84.82 63%

Motorbike/Moped/Scooter 26.56 9.09 -17.47 -66%

Car Driver - on your own 937.88 1103.40 165.52 18%

Car Driver - with at least 1 passenger

85.35 89.88 4.53 5%

Car Passenger 179.98 184.66 4.68 3%

Car Sharer (car sharing scheme) 13.55 6.48 -7.07 -52%

Taxi 35.83 83.05 47.22 132%

Wheelchair/mobility scooter 0.00 0.00 0 0

4.18 As can be observed from Table 4.4, the use of ‘Other’ bus services and the train show a near

two-thirds increase, whilst the use of the U1/Wessex 16 bus service has given rise to a 30%

fall in CO2 emissions. The overall number of students using public transport (i.e. bus/coach,

train, taxi, P&R) has fallen by 103 students from 566 in 2015 students to 463 in 2018, despite

an increase of 4,833 in the overall university student population.

63

4.19 The increase in CO2 from single occupancy car use is slightly surprising as Bristol has tightened

up its on-street parking restrictions, with very few free parking spaces available now within the

city. A detailed examination of the data shows that the actual number of students driving to

university on their own has fallen from 8,655 in 2015 to 7,723 in 2018. However, the grams of

CO2 produced by each individual student has risen by 165g per week, indicating that the

distance travelled by each car driving student has increased. This has increased only slightly

by around 0.5 mile per week per student. In view of this, the 18% increase in single occupancy

car use is more closely associated with the 26% increase in student numbers than as a general

move away from sustainable travel modes.

4.20 Whilst taxi use appears to have increased by 132%, a detailed examination identifies that the

distance per student by taxi has more than doubled (0.127 miles per student in 2015 to 0.295

miles in 2018). On review, it is noted that nearly a third of the total distance travelled in 2018 is

related to three students only, one of whom claims to undertake 3 return journeys a week at a

length of 138 miles each, and occasionally uses a taxi. This adds a significant bias to the results

for taxi use, despite only relating to a handful of student users.

4.21 This anomaly adds a bias to the results for two reasons:

(i) due to the weighting method chosen - occasional taxi use generates a weighting of

0.333 trips (compared to 1 for ‘usual’ mode choice) - which means that every 3

‘occasional’ trips equals one ‘usual’ trip, whereas their actual use may be very

occasional; and

(ii) it is likely that the single student only uses taxi for part of their journey (as they

record that they also ‘sometimes’ use a coach and a train), which may mean these

modes are the primary mode for their journey, with taxi use only accounting for the

final leg from the train/coach station.

4.22 For ‘Other’ bus services (+64%), one lady claims to travel 52 miles to University, five days a

week but somehow makes two return journeys per day. This is highly unlikely (i.e. total of 20 x

52 mile trips per week) but it makes up around 5% of the ‘Other’ bus service distance travelled.

Similarly, at least four other students with some of the longest distances travelled identified that

they usually use the ‘other’ bus services but also ‘usually’ drive or take the train. This accounts

for around a further 10% of the total distance travelled by ‘other’ buses.

4.23 For travel by train, a similar pattern emerges whereby students travel over 30 miles by train

daily but claim in Question 13 to make two return journeys per day. Of the seven longest train

journeys (the longest being 126 miles), six students claim to make two return journeys per day

which is clearly unlikely.

64

4.24 In view of the examples outlined above, it is considered that there is an inherent bias

incorporated into the survey for two primary reasons:

• ‘Occasional’ use of a particular mode may overestimate its actual use, with it

accounting for one third of a trip by a ‘usual’ mode. The subjective nature of the

categories may not be reflected in the weightings attached to them; and

• the survey does not make any allowance for modes used as a part of a trip chain,

instead assuming that the mode selected is ‘occasionally’ or ‘sometimes’ used for the

whole length of the journey. For modes such as taxi (and Park and Ride), it is much

more likely that these are only used for part of the full length of the journey but no

allowance is made for that in the analysis.

4.25 When this is coupled with apparent confusion in the responses provided to Question 13

(number of return journeys per day), the effect of any incorrect responses is amplified. Many

students reported that they made two return trips per day despite living outside the city. This

may be related to confusion in the language used in the question (confusing one return trip

with, one inbound and one outbound trip).

Suggestions for Future Improvements to the Survey

4.26 Consideration could be given to removing ‘occasional’ use from the emissions calculations as

this appears to over-estimate its actual use. This would offer the opportunity to re-base the

‘sometimes’ category from 0.666 to 0.5. This would remove the possibility of making

comparisons with previous years but may present a more accurate output that is less effected

by the bias associated with lesser used modes

4.27 A method should be considered that allows respondents to define their ‘usual’ trip chain modes

and attach a distance to each leg. This would permit a much more accurate assessment of

actual vehicle emissions rather than assuming that the full distance is travelled by all specified

travel modes when actual modes, such as Park & Ride or walking, may only form a small part

of the total trip distance.

65

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Outline of Brief

5.1 The University is committed to reducing reliance on single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and

aims to reduce the number of cars taken to University sites. It conducts regular surveys to

identify student and staff travel patterns and to help develop an effective package of sustainable

travel measures aimed at influencing student’s mode choice for their journeys to and from

University sites.

5.2 The 2018 University Student Travel Survey was undertaken in February 2018 to collect

information regarding the travel habits of students and issues that impact on their choice of

travel mode. The survey was undertaken as part of the University’s ongoing commitment to

manage the impact of travel and promote sustainable travel choices, as set out in its Travel

Plan.

5.3 Invitations to complete the online survey were emailed to 23,161 full-time and 1,863 part-time

students, of which 2,184 provided responses, equating to a response rate of 8.7% compared

to a response rate in 2015 of 15.9%. The majority of students have term time addresses within

the Bristol (BS) postcode region.

5.4 Key Transport Consultants (KTC) have been retained by the University to analyse the results

of their 2018 Student Travel Survey and summarise the findings. This report includes details of

the adopted methodology, including the management and cleansing of the datasets,

assessments of five individual accommodation and study location groups, and performing a

comparison with previous years’ mode share data from 2015. For consistency, an assessment

of CO2 emissions is also undertaken, based on the method previously adopted for the

assessment of student travel emissions in 2015. Each of these aspects can subsequently be

used to inform progress towards the University’s current Travel Plan goals.

Summary

5.5 Many aspects of the survey showed no significant change since the previous, 2015 survey

including gender split, age ranges, disabilities, caring responsibilities, accommodation

locations, type of degree courses, and the students’ full/part-time status.

5.6 Some minor differences were observed in the number of trips per day to specific University

sites with a shift from one trip to two return trips per day at the All Hospitals, North Village and

Langford Campus. There were also minor changes reported in the number of trips undertaken

per week, especially at Langford, where five-day attendance fell by roughly the same amount

as two-day attendance increased (between 15-20%).

66

5.7 The surveys identified that the vast majority (85.4% weighted average) of students still travel

between their term time address and their place of study using non-car modes, as was the case

in 2015. 64.4% (weighted average) of travel to and from a place of study is by active travel

modes (i.e. walking and cycling), with walking continuing to be the most popular form of travel

to study with 56.1% of respondents (weighted average) saying that this is their usual mode.

This compares to a weighted average of 62.8% in 2015.

5.8 Car Driver (on own – weighted average) has increased slightly from 2.4% in 2015 to 3.3% in

2018. The proportion that use all Public Transport (including bus, coach, P&R, taxi and train

travel) has increased from 18.9% in 2015 to 20.3% in 2018.

5.9 In terms of travel times, it appears that students are able to travel from the North Village to their

study location much quicker than in 2015, with a 40% increase in the 0-15 minute time period

group. In contrast, a smaller proportion of students are able to access their study location from

the West Village in less than 15 minutes (-17%). There has been a significant increase in the

numbers of students who are able to access the All Hospitals sites within a 15-minute journey

(+38%) with slight increases in travel times observed at Langford for journeys of less than 45

minutes.

5.10 The survey reported that there has been a change in vehicle parking associated with the

University, with a shift away from free on-street parking (-13%), towards Residents Parking

Zones (+5%) and private driveways (+10%). This is consistent with the recent changes to both

university and local government parking policies within Bristol including the expansion of the

Residents Parking Zones and the reduction in the level of free parking spaces.

5.11 Residents of the three village sites appear less inclined to use the U1 service and prefer to use

‘other’ services, although generally only for occasional use and not as their primary travel mode.

Similarly, at the Hospitals and Langford use of ‘other’ bus services is predominant, which may

reflect the limited bus services which access the Langford Campus site.

5.12 In terms of cycle parking at study locations, the 2018 survey reports a shift away from locking

bikes to railings (-8.2% since 2015) towards the use of formal bicycle hoops (+9.7%), with no

significant change at accommodation locations. It should be noted that several students

complained about their bicycles being stolen and the limited coverage of CCTV. This is reflected

in the survey results with a reduction in students cycling to university and an increase in

students storing bicycles within buildings rather than in on-street or cycle shed locations.

5.13 The survey reveals low levels of awareness around the Travel Plan and most of the Travel Plan

measures currently being implemented by the University. The one notable exception was the

Unibus U1 bus service of which 86% of students were aware.

67

5.14 A number of recurring themes were identified in the survey responses, particularly where

students were able to provide comments or alternative answers. The themes included:

• Issues with travel to Langford;

• Requests for additional early morning/evening bus services;

• Issues around access to the Coombe Dingle sports ground, particularly during exams;

• Lack of sheltered/secure cycle parking around the University Precinct;

• Concerns about the punctuality of local bus services;

• Concerns about the lack of car parking for students on the University Precinct.

5.15 The survey data has been used to calculate the carbon footprint of students travelling between

their term time address and their place of study each week. It was calculated that the average

student generated approximately 2650.94g of CO2 per week with an overall generation of CO2

being 61.399kg per week. This compares to 41,219kg of CO2 per week in 2015 for 18,328

students, which represents a 49% increase in CO2 emissions from 2015 to 2018 for a 26%

increase in total student numbers (i.e. +4,833 persons).

Conclusions

5.16 In view of the above, despite some improvements, it is considered that there has been very

limited change in mode share and travel habits since the 2015 survey. Unweighted changes in

walking, cycling, overall public transport use and car use show very little variation between 2015

and 2018, with the most significant modal shift being between individual bus services. Despite

this, the 2018 emissions calculations show a notable increase in vehicle emissions although

part of this can be attributed to a 26% increase in student numbers.

FIGURES

APPENDIX A

Student Travel Survey Questionnaire

student travel surveys analysis report 2018 final travel... · • undertake a spreadsheet analysis...

Documents